Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report

June 29, 2018

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01)

Eric Pingrey, Superintendent

Eva M Pohl, Director of Special Education Table of Contents Introduction and Authority ...... 3 Scope of Monitoring ...... 3 Resulting Findings and Corrective Action ...... 3 District Overview ...... 4 Monitoring Findings by Area ...... 4 Area 1: Governance ...... 4 Area 2: Facilities, Equipment and Materials ...... 8 Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation ...... 10 Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation ...... 14 Summary of Corrective Action Required ...... 18 Appendix ...... 19 Acronyms ...... 19 Individual Student Record Noncompliance...... 20 Complaint Decisions ...... 20 Interviews ...... 20 Federal Instructional Settings by Disability ...... 21 Race/Ethnicity by Disability ...... 22 Age by Disability ...... 23

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 2 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. Additionally, state law requires every local educational agency (LEA) to ensure all students with disabilities are provided specialized instruction and services appropriate to their needs. Minn. Stat. § 125A.08(b)(1). Each 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 Monitors from MDE’s Division of Compliance and Assistance conducted a full compliance review of the special education program of Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01). The monitoring process included a review of:

• The district’s total special education system (TSES) plan and restrictive procedures plans (RPPs) • Two 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

• 7 Part B (students ages 3 through 21) and 4 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 by December 6, 2018. If individual student noncompliance is identified for correction, tracking is completed through the Minnesota Continuous Improvement Process: Self Review (MNCIMP:SR) system and the district may be required to develop and implement a CAP to address findings of noncompliance.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 3 District Overview

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley (WHA) Public School District is a small, rural district located in north-central Minnesota; the district is one of four member districts of the PAWN special education cooperative. The district is comprised of two connected buildings for elementary and secondary and serves students in early childhood through grade 12. The compliance review included in this report will analyze the district’s collaborative approach to offering special education programming, training, resources and other related service efforts.

Monitoring Findings by Area

Area 1: Governance

Topic Area: Total Special Education System

A total special education system (TSES) is a plan describing a district’s special education policies, procedures and programs. A plan for a single district or for the member districts of a formal special education cooperative identifies the district’s responsibilities regarding child study procedures, methods of providing the special education services for identified pupils, administration and management plans to assure effective and efficient results, operating procedures of interagency committees and any interagency agreements into which the district has entered.

After conducting a self-review, the special education director provided MDE with an assurance that the district’s TSES demonstrates 100% compliance with Minnesota Rule 3525.1100.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Restrictive Procedures Plan

“Restrictive procedures” means the use of physical holding or seclusion of children with disabilities in an emergency. Because the special education director reported the district intends to continue the use of physically holding children with disabilities in an emergency, the district is required to maintain and make publicly accessible a restrictive procedures plan (RPP) for children with disabilities. Minnesota Statute requires that the plan must, at least, list the restrictive procedures the school intends to use; describe how the school will monitor and review the use of restrictive procedures; and include a written description and documentation of the training school personnel completed.

After conducting a self-review, the special education director provided MDE with an assurance that the district’s RPP demonstrates 100% compliance with Minnesota Statute, sections 125A.0941 and 125A.0942.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Staffing

The district’s special education administrative staffing includes a special education director and special education coordinator. A superintendent and two building principals provide district-level administrative

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 4 leadership. The special education director reported the district is staffed with special education personnel consisting of 10 special education teachers, 4 related service providers and 26 special education paraprofessionals. Related service providers include speech/language pathology, school psychology, school nurse, deaf/hard of hearing and social work. The district also contracts with outside agencies, the PAWN cooperative and with nearby districts for Developmental Adapted Physical Education (DAPE), physical therapy, occupational therapy and mental health resources. The special education director reported the district historically used substitute school psychologists; currently the district has a consistent school psychologist that assists in meeting due process requirements including timelines and upgrading testing materials. This staff addition was determined as a program strength.

Special education and building administration were asked to describe the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers, or paraprofessionals are absent. Interview responses confirmed sufficient procedures related to short- and long-term absences and the process for informing substitutes about relevant IEP information. Positions are filled with substitutes both for short and long-term absences. Staff requests coverage from a district substitute list. If it is difficult to fill the position, other district staff may cover service or reschedule to ensure students receive necessary service minutes. The special education director and building administrator reported significant concern regarding finding and hiring licensed staff; those hired often are on a licensure variance and need extensive training in order to complete their responsibilities. Currently available positions are advertised on a teacher job-posting website as well as through local and regional newspapers. WHA has contacted local universities to search for potential candidates to fill open positions. The district has contracted with licensed providers from other PAWN districts or local agencies, such as hospitals, to assist with programming efforts for students. The special education director reported that personnel substituting for providers or paraprofessionals are given relevant information including schedules and explicit instructions for working with students.

Over 44 percent of special education providers, 27 percent of general education teachers and 20 percent of paraprofessionals reported concerns regarding the delivery of special education services or support when special education teachers, related service providers or paraprofessionals are absent. Staff confirmed difficulties finding licensed and trained special education providers and paraprofessionals, both full-time and during absence, in order to meet students’ needs. The district has pursued several strategies to address this need and is commended for the many efforts currently used to improve the issue and is encouraged to continue their expansion.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Training

Special education professional development initiatives have been offered to licensed and non-licensed district personnel over the past two years including the use of restrictive procedures, bullying prevention and due process. Other than via cooperative or district-led trainings, licensed and non-licensed staff is informed of special education policies and procedures or changes to special education policies and procedures via updates from special education administration to building administration, emails and training. General education teachers are informed by their building administration, while special education providers receive necessary

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 5 updates from the special education director and school psychologist. Case managers share information with special education paraprofessionals.

Special education administration and building administration identify training needs based on caseloads, file reviews and staff interest surveys. Staff provides feedback after training and responses are discussed with the coordinator and special education director. Interview responses suggest that most special providers and general education teachers are adequately prepared to provide services and support to students receiving special education, including training in the use of assistive technology (e.g., tablet computers, communication devices, software, recorders, timers, reading guides, seat cushions, calculators, graphic organizers and writing supports). While several special education teachers noted that district or cooperative training has improved in recent years, they would like more training on the assistive technology available and how to use technology. 30 percent of general education teachers reported they do not have adequate assistance from special education teachers. Comments included limited help with adapting instruction, special education staff not sharing IEP information, minimal support with providing accommodations and limited training regarding specific students in mainstream classrooms.

Building administrators, special education teachers and special education paraprofessionals using restrictive procedures have received the necessary training on the use of physical holds/restraint. District personnel confirmed the confidentiality of any personally identifiable data, information and records of students is also maintained.

Minnesota Statute requires that for all paraprofessionals employed to work in special education programs, the district shall ensure each paraprofessional has sufficient knowledge and skills in emergency procedures, building orientation, roles and responsibilities, confidentiality, vulnerability of students and mandatory reporting of suspected abuse before or beginning at the time of employment. Building administrators reported and recently hired paraprofessionals confirmed, they receive sufficient information from the district in order to meet students’ needs. Annual training opportunities also are made available to paraprofessionals to further develop the knowledge and skills that are specific to the students with whom they work, including understanding disabilities, following lesson plans and implementing follow-up instructional procedures and activities. Most paraprofessionals reportedly receive sufficient ongoing direction from a licensed teacher; they suggested more training relevant to the students for which they work; supporting student behaviors, technology and following lesson plans or implementing instruction. Those providing IEP health-related services for a student receiving special education receive ongoing direction from a school nurse where appropriate and when possible.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Special Education Advisory Council

Minnesota Statute, section 125A.24, requires school districts establish a special education advisory council (SEAC) to increase the involvement of parents of children with disabilities in district policy making and decision making. The special education director confirmed attempts to establish a cooperative SEAC that meets regularly,

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 6 however, the cooperative does not currently have an established SEAC with membership of which at least half are parents of a student with a disability as required.

Corrective Action: The district must submit documentation that a SEAC has been established with a membership at least half of which are parents of a child with a disability.

Topic Area: Service Delivery, Teaching Models and Collaboration

Children ages birth through two receive early intervention services at programs designed for typically developing children and in the child’s home. School-aged children with disabilities at WHA receive special education services via pull-out, push-in, resource room, indirect, itinerant instruction and homebound instruction in federal instructional settings 1, 2 and 3, which describe the location and the amount of time that a student with an IEP receives special education services.

Special education service delivery occurring outside of the public school setting in alternative sites located within the district’s boundaries also was described in interviews. Homeschooled students receive services at the school facility. Students attending private schools are transported to WHA for services, although some services such as deaf/hard of hearing services are provided at the private school.

Most special education and building administration, special education teachers and related service providers did not describe any specific limitations to the variety of teaching models or types of service delivery options available to students receiving special education or related services. Some comments indicated limited access to providers, such as physical or occupational therapy, which must be contracted with other districts. Special education teachers and related service providers reported receipt of indirect services, including consultation from appropriately licensed providers, if they are not licensed in a student’s category of disability and responsible for implementing an IEP.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Resources and Supports for Staff

Building administrators receive adequate assistance and support from special education administrators regarding questions and concerns related to special education. Correspondingly, most special education teachers and related service providers also receive adequate assistance and support with questions and concerns related to special education from building administration and special education administration. Typically general education teachers agreed, although 21 percent reported concerns. As indicated above in the topic area Training, they listed examples of difficulty being able to locate IEP information and inconsistency with special education teachers providing IEP supports. Additional information regarding this concern is outlined under the topic area Communicating IEP Content below.

Corrective Action: None

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 7 Area 2: Facilities, Equipment and Materials

Topic Area: Facilities

On May 3, 2018 an MDE monitor conducted an onsite review of the special education programs and facilities at WHA. The district has one building for early childhood through grade 12. An alternative learning center (ALC) is located off site in the Walker Community Center. The purpose of the review is to verify that the classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services are accessible, are essentially equivalent to the regular education program, provide an atmosphere that is generally conducive to learning and usually meet the students’ special physical, sensory and emotional needs.

The district has an early childhood special education classroom, thirteen resource rooms, two speech rooms and space shared by occupational therapy and deaf/hard of hearing. One of the resource rooms was configured into a Setting 3 program in February to meet student needs.

Results of the onsite review and interviews completed by building administration, special education service providers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers conclude that many of the classrooms and other facilities in which students receive instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services overall meet the requirements outlined in Minnesota Rule 3525.1400. However, facility concerns were expressed in staff interviews and were observed onsite by the monitor as indicated below. Specific concerns reported needing break-out space for students and areas to provide services, such as speech, away from disruptions.

Room #E126 is used to provide early childhood services and has up to twelve students in the small classroom; age appropriate instruction often requires hands-on opportunities and movement so the higher number of students leaves limited space for students to complete necessary hands-on activities. Room #E113 typically has two or three students at a time, but during reading instruction it houses twelve students and two or three adults. Reportedly it is difficult to manage and provide instruction when there are twelve students because of the room’s smaller size and that it is crowded with furniture and instruction materials. While visiting room #M227, a loud banging noise was identified to be the boiler in the classroom. The special education teacher reported the disruptions were infrequent and only seasonal when the boiler is turning on, but still were noticeably distracting to students. Room #H127B is a small classroom used by two speech providers. With several shelves, two teacher desks and student work space, the room is cramped when both teachers share the classroom at least once a week.

The special education director acknowledged facility concerns and indicated the district is moving room #E113 next year to room #E107 to accommodate necessary group sizes. The speech providers will move from their current room in #H127B to room #E113, a bigger classroom that easily will house speech students, teacher desks and instructional supplies.

Special education and building administration described sufficient procedures, including timelines and individuals involved, when determining classroom needs or locations of classrooms for special education and related services. Special education and building administration collaborate on making facility decisions in order to meet student needs.

Corrective Action: None

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 8 Concern: As reported through interviews and observed during tours, some rooms in both general and special education are crowded. The district is commended on its proactive efforts to adjust classroom assignments to best meet student needs and advised to continue the evaluation process to ensure facility space is conducive to learning and meets students’ physical, sensory and emotional needs.

Topic Area: Equipment and Supplies

Minnesota Rule requires districts supply special equipment and instructional materials necessary to provide instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services. Most special education service providers, paraprofessionals and general education teachers confirmed they are adequately equipped with special equipment and instructional materials to provide instruction and supports to students receiving special education services, including the use of assistive technology.

Many special education teachers and paraprofessionals reported concerns that computers were down for an extended time. Follow-up interviews with the special education director clarified that the district had a virus that impeded use of computers for several weeks. The district resolved the issue and implemented practices to ensure this would not occur in the future. During follow-up interviews, early childhood staff indicated need for tablet computers and an interactive whiteboard in the classroom. This request was shared with the special education director who indicated a plan to evaluate the reported need.

Staff sufficiently described in interviews steps and procedures special education teachers and related service providers follow in order to obtain special equipment, instructional materials, consumables, etc. necessary to implement IEPs in both general and special education settings. Building administration reported that equipment needs are discussed by staff and administration. Requests are approved by the school administrator and special education director prior to purchase.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Room Used for Seclusion

The district reported it did not have a room used for seclusion at WHA; however, one seclusion room was registered on the Minnesota Department of Education’s website. Several initial responses from stakeholders expressed confusion on whether the district had a seclusion room or if it was used for this purpose. During the onsite review, district staff reported the registered room is not used for seclusion. As a result, the status of the room subsequently was changed from “Registered” to “Inactive” in the MNCIMP:SR web-based system, making the room impermissible for seclusion purposes. Since the district has no intention to use this room for seclusion, corrective action will not be ordered at this time.

Corrective Action: None

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 9 Area 3: Child Find and Evaluation

Topic Area: Child Find Process

“Child find” under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act refers to the local education agency’s obligation to locate, identify and evaluate all children with disabilities.

As part of Minnesota’s statewide comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary interagency system to provide early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families, districts must have in place specific pre-referral, referral and post-referral policies and procedures. As confirmed by the special education director and early childhood special education (ECSE) staff, the district’s child find system for children ages birth to three include the following components:

• A public awareness program which prepares, shares and assists primary referral sources in disseminating to parents and families required information describing the availability of early intervention services, the district’s child-find system and how to refer a child under the age of three for an evaluation or for early intervention services through contacting Help Me Grow, physician referrals, brochures and county billboards.

• A comprehensive child find system which includes a process for making referrals, provides for participation by the primary referral sources and ensures all infants and toddlers (including those who reside on Indian reservations, are homeless, in foster care, or are wards of the state) are identified, located and evaluated.

• A variety of primary referral sources including hospitals, physicians, parents, child care programs, public health facilities and public agencies.

• Post-referral screening procedures (i.e., screening instead of immediately conducting an initial evaluation for early intervention services, which is distinct from preschool screening) using Bailey Scales of Infants and Toddler Development and Ages and Stages Questionnaire.

• Steps and services to support the smooth transition of children from Part C to Part B (or to other appropriate services).

The district’s child find system for locating, identifying and evaluating children and preschoolers ages 3 to 6 under Part B (including children on Indian reservations, who are homeless, in foster care, or are wards of the state) includes:

• A public awareness program which prepares, shares and assists primary referral sources in disseminating to parents and families required information describing the availability of early intervention services, the district’s child-find system and how to refer a preschool-aged child for an evaluation.

• A comprehensive child find system which includes a process for making referrals, provides for participation by the primary referral sources and ensures preschool-aged children (including those who reside on Indian reservations, are homeless, in foster care, or are wards of the state) are identified, located and evaluated by contacting Help Me Grow.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 10 Minnesota Rule requires that before a school-aged student is referred for a special education evaluation, the district must conduct and document at least two instructional strategies, alternatives or interventions (i.e., “pre- referral interventions”) while the student is in the regular classroom. General and special education teachers at WHA confirmed students are receiving and teachers are documenting at least two pre-referral interventions in the regular classroom. General education teachers at WHA described participation in a variety of pre-referral process activities including 72 percent that participate in meetings to discuss interventions, 66 percent meet regularly to discuss student concerns, 56 percent receive resources for collecting and documenting referral data and 41 percent receive consultation and resources regarding completing interventions. Some high school general education teachers noted that the referral process is informal and any concerns are discussed with special education providers.

According to district staff, WHA has a designated child find team that meets to discuss students participating in the child find process. Responses indicated that the Student Assistance Team (SAT) meets weekly at the elementary school. Interventions are discussed and documentation is tracked. Initial interviews completed in January indicated that at the beginning of the school year, (SAT) met twice a month at the secondary school. By mid-year, the secondary team was meeting monthly or when needed. Several individuals reported in follow-up interviews completed in early April that the high school level SAT had not been meeting regularly since January. The staff member originally tasked to facilitate the high school SAT was new to the role; after January those responsibilities were shifted and no one filled this role at the secondary level. A handful of responses noted that teacher concerns at the secondary level would be shared informally with the special education coordinator. Building administration reported a plan to revisit the secondary level referral process in May and then train teachers on the new process. Team members at both levels typically consist of general education teachers, academic interventionist, counselors, school nurse and building administration. Teachers must complete a form that includes interventions already tried with students prior to bringing the student to SAT.

With the understanding that identifying students potentially in need of special education assistance takes time, 35 percent of general education teachers reported through initial and follow-up interviews that pre-referral interventions do result in an unreasonable delay of initial evaluation for special education services. Almost a third of general education teachers provided clarification that the delays occurred because the SAT intervention process is too long and labor intensive, data documentation is not consistently tracked and referral steps are inconsistent depending on specific students. The special education director reported that the building administration sees a need for providing training on how to collect data and complete interventions.

Several interviewees did not report a policy or practice restricting the timing of referral for a special education evaluation referral; however, almost 40 percent of general education teachers indicated they were unsure and six identified restrictions for referral for special education evaluations; in addition, one building administrator also reported limitations to when referrals are received. Interviews did not describe a policy or practice of delaying initial special education evaluations of English language learner students based on his or her English language learner status, although those tasked to lead the referral process indicated delay of at least the first year an English language learner is in the country.

If interventions are unsuccessful, the student would be referred to the Child Study Team (CST) to discuss evaluation to determine special education eligibility. CST team members include building administration, general education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologist and other staff as deemed necessary. The

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 11 CST meets twice per month at the elementary school and once per month at the secondary level or as needed. The elementary team is considering meeting more frequently, possibly weekly.

General education teachers, special education staff and building administration reported that a defined process, particularly at the secondary level, is lacking. General education teachers from both levels noted unreasonable delays with identification, confusion on referral restrictions and inconsistent intervention data collection while building administration acknowledged a need to clarify the process at the secondary level.

Public school districts also are required to have in place child find processes for homeschooled students, private school students and students in alternative sites that include but are not limited to alternative learning centers (ALCs), alternative learning programs (ALPs) and care and treatment facilities. Homeschooled students follow district child find procedures with the homeschool teacher or parent notifying the district with any concerns. Families are informed of the referral opportunity using information posted by the district in the local paper at the start of each year. Homeschooled students also have access to a school procedures manual available on the district website. Private school administration contacts the district regarding student concerns and referral needs. The special education director has cultivated relationships with private school administration and regularly works with those principals, including the process for referring students for potential special education evaluation.

The district also utilizes school-wide positive approaches to behavioral interventions so all students acquire appropriate behaviors and skills, including Responsive Classroom and Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS) at the elementary and PBIS at the secondary school.

Corrective Action: None

Concern: While the district has recently developed a structured child find process, stakeholders continue to report confusion. The district’s high rate of special education identification strongly suggests child find is occurring at WHA. The district is strongly recommended to provide more training to special education and general education teachers on child find methodology.

Topic Area: Transfer Process

Interview responses from special education teachers and related service providers suggest that WHA has sufficient processes in place to ensure the provision of comparable services to special education students who transfer to the district from another district (in-state or out-of-state), as required by federal regulation. Interview responses offered no concerns regarding the prompt transmittal and request of records as well as immediate provision of services upon enrollment.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Evaluations

Federal regulation requires that assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a student are provided and administered in the student’s native language or other mode of communication and in the form most likely to yield accurate information on what the student knows and can do academically, developmentally

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 12 and functionally, unless it is clearly not feasible to so provide or administer; are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel; and are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments. While interview responses did not report any concerns related to completing evaluations, the district has findings related to evaluation materials and procedures as outlined below under Due Process Compliance.

Federal regulation also requires districts to ensure assessments and other evaluation materials used to assess a student are not discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis. Interview responses affirm that special education teachers and related service providers know when and how to address concerns related to racial or cultural discrimination when evaluating students.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Exit Procedures

Federal regulation requires districts to evaluate a child with a disability before determining that the child is no longer a child with a disability. Special education teachers and related service providers described compliant procedures for exiting a student from special education services when he or she has made adequate progress such that continuing need for services no longer exists.

An evaluation is not required before the termination of a child’s eligibility due to graduation from secondary school with a regular diploma, or due to exceeding the age of eligibility for a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) under state law. For a student whose eligibility terminates under these circumstances, the district must provide him or her with a summary of the student’s academic achievement and functional performance, including recommendations on how to assist the student in meeting his or her postsecondary goals. Again, special education teachers and related service providers described compliant procedures in this regard.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

The WHA Public School District’s Final Report, dated May 31, 2013, was completed following the district’s last onsite visit. It included 5 findings of noncompliance through a review of student records for Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards involving 13 Part B and 4 Part C student records. Findings included the areas of Evaluation 30 Day Timelines, Frequency of Evaluation Timelines and Post Referral Timelines. In 2015-16, WHA Public School District was notified of findings of noncompliance associated with Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards following its Self-Review in the areas of Evaluation 30 Day Timelines, Frequency of Revaluation, Evaluation Materials and Procedures, Evaluation Report, SLD Written Report, Functional Behavioral Assessment and Eligibility.

This school year, the district was required to review 11 special education records (7 Part B and 4 Part C) and report the compliance results to MDE for Timeline, Evaluation and Eligibility Standards related to the evaluation process and identification of special education needs and related services. The results reported by the district

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 13 indicate continued noncompliance with Evaluation 30 Day Timelines, Frequency of Reevaluation Timelines and Evaluation Materials and Procedures.

Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement CAPs to address systemic noncompliance regarding Evaluation 30 Day Timelines, Frequency of Reevaluation and Evaluation Materials and Procedures. All citations of individual student files also must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE by December 6, 2018.

Area 4: IEP and IFSP Process and Implementation

Topic Area: Least Restrictive Environment

Early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities are provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, in the child’s natural environment. Interview responses suggested that each school-aged child with a disability is educated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent possible, has equal access to extra- curricular and nonacademic activities (e.g. counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, district- sponsored clubs, recess, meals, etc.) available to non-disabled peers and is fully integrated with non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. If a student is removed from the general education environment, the removal occurs only if the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Most staff did not report concerns regarding educational placement decisions or options available to students receiving special education. Twenty- two percent of special education teachers reported concern with limited possibilities for more restrictive settings if students need more support. The special education director reported that a Setting 3 program was started in February to address some of these issues. While the cooperative does not currently have a Setting 4 program, it is exploring creating a program for member districts; the proposed opening date would be in two years.

The special education director described sufficient procedures that ensures a student placed outside of the district by an IEP team receives an appropriate IEP, the student is placed in the least restrictive environment and due process procedures associated with these responsibilities are followed.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Communicating IEP Content

Early childhood special education teachers and related service providers responsible for service coordination reported a range of services made available to infants and toddlers with disabilities and communicated to parents. When necessary, early intervention services have been provided immediately to the child and to the child’s family based on an interim IFSP.

Related service providers, paraprofessionals and special education teachers reportedly have access to the IEP of each school-aged student with a disability for whom they are responsible via relevant portions of the IEP or through discussion of IEP content with service providers at the beginning of the school year and when appropriate. Paraprofessionals and most general education teachers indicated they are sufficiently informed of their specific responsibilities and the specific accommodations, modifications and supports required by the IEPs of the students with whom they work. However, some general education teachers reported issues with special

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 14 education teachers who either do not always share necessary information because of confidentiality concerns or provide them with support in implementing the IEP. During follow-up interviews, the special education director reported the district would address the concerns by increasing collaboration between special education and general education teachers. The district is strongly advised to solidify the process of distributing details to all staff involved in IEP implementation.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Team Members and Meetings

Each IEP team must include a representative of the public agency (i.e., “district representative”). The district representative must be qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities; knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency. Most building administration, special education teachers and related service providers confirmed that the district representatives at IEP meetings met these qualifications. Some concerns were reported that the designee is unable to commit resources. The special education director clarified that district representatives meet all requirements and indicated further follow-up will be provided to staff to ensure the designees understand they can commit resources.

General education teachers receive timely notice of IEP meetings; as members of the IEP team, general education teachers also fully participate in the determination of IEP services such as supplemental aids and services, behavioral supports and program modifications.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Extended School Year

Federal and state regulations require school districts provide extended school year (ESY) services as necessary to ensure FAPE as determined by a student’s IEP team on an individual basis. Based on interview responses from building administration, special education teachers and related service providers, ESY services are made available as appropriate. Additionally, the district does not limit ESY services to particular categories of disability or unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Progress Reporting

For preschool-aged children, early childhood special education providers ensure periodic reviews are held at least every six months, as required by federal regulation.

Each district also must ensure an IEP team reviews a school-aged child’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the student is achieving annual goals; and revise the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress, the results of any reevaluation or information about the student, or the student’s anticipated needs. The district’s special education teachers and related service providers described existing practices that satisfy progress reporting requirements.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 15 While staff did not report concerns about progress reporting, the district has a history of noncompliance in the area of progress reporting as outlined in the topic area Due Process Compliance below.

Corrective Action: None

Topic Area: Secondary Transition

Transition services are coordinated activities for a student with a disability that are focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the student to assist the student’s shift from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. Transition services are based on the individual student’s needs, taking into account the student’s strengths, preferences and interests.

The special education director, special education teachers and related service providers at WHA described secondary transition services, activities or programming opportunities provided or available to students with a disability, including work experience programs, courses of study available specific to students’ needs, college visits, partnerships with community agencies to support employment, post-secondary education and independent living skills. The special education director reported community partners provide work sites and the district has a work-based learning coordinator to assist students. Vocational Rehabilitation and the Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) have enabled the district to enhance employment opportunities. The director also acknowledged the need for more training around transition. Noncompliance also was identified in student record review; information is detailed below in topic area Due Process Compliance.

Corrective Action:

Topic Area: Due Process Compliance

WHA’s 2012-13 Final Report was completed following the district’s last onsite visit. It included findings of noncompliance through a review of student records for Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards involving 13 Part B and 4 Part C student records in the area of Annual Review of IEP timelines. In 2015-16, WHA was notified of findings of noncompliance associated with Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards following its Self-Review in the area of Team Members, Excusal of Team Members, Special Education and Related Services, Review and Revision ESY, Progress Reporting, Secondary Transition and continued noncompliance in Annual Review of IEP.

This school year, the district was required to review 11 special education records (7 Part B and 4 Part C) and report the compliance results to MDE for Timeline and IEP/IFSP Standards related to the IEP/IFSP process and provision of special education and related services. The results reported by the district indicate records were noncompliant in the areas of When IEP Must Be in Effect, IFSP Requirements, IFSP Required Content, IFSP Periodic Review and continued noncompliance with Team Members, Progress Reporting and Secondary Transition. Systemic concerns did not arise to order corrective action plans for the district in the area of Team Members and Secondary Transition. The district has provided training to staff on compliance standards and will provide continued refreshers to support staff in meeting regulatory requirements. Continued systemic issues of noncompliance in Progress Reporting and Annual Review of IEP Timelines has been identified by MDE as areas requiring corrective action following the individual record review process.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 16 Corrective Action: The district must develop and implement CAPs to address systemic noncompliance regarding Progress Reporting and Annual Review of IEP Timelines. All citations of individual student files must be corrected by the district and verified by MDE by December 6, 2018.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 17 Summary of Corrective Action Required

Formal findings of individual student record noncompliance were issued from 8 of the 11 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. Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113- 01) was notified of individual student noncompliance on January 6, 2018. As of the date of this report, the district has demonstrated correction of 89.47 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):

Area Focus Area Regulatory Reference 1 Address establishing SEAC membership Minn. Stat. § 125A.24 2 No findings at the time of the report 3 Address 30 Day Evaluation Timelines Minn. R. 3525.2550 3 Address Frequency of Revaluation Timelines Minn. R. 3525.2710 3 Address Evaluation Materials and Procedures 34 C.F.R. § 300.304 4 Address Progress Reporting Minn. R. 3525.2810 4 Address Annual IEP Timelines 34 C.F.R. § 300.324

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.

For questions regarding the content of this report, please contact the district’s lead monitor:

Nicole Dardis Compliance Specialist Division of Compliance and Assistance 1500 West Highway 36 Roseville, MN 55113 651-582-8343 [email protected]

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 18 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 the district 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, 2017, Part B and Part C federal child count, students identified as receiving special education and related services are 26.2 percent (n = 215) of the district total enrollment compared to the statewide average of 15.5 percent. Students receiving special education and related services within 0113-01 represent 21.9 percent (n = 181) 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 3.3 percent of the population compared to 2.8 percent statewide (preliminary). The “population” used is based on census data reported by the district to MDE.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 19 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 11 individual findings on January 6, 2018. 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 Records Part Compliance Area General Citation(s) Cited B Timelines: Evaluation Timelines (if evaluation 34 CFR § 76.731 1 completed after child turned 3) Minn. R. 3525.2550 B Timelines: Frequency of Reevaluation Minn. R. 3525.2710 2 B Timelines: Annual Review of IEP 34 CFR § 300.324 3 B Evaluation Standards: Evaluation Materials and 34 CFR § 300.304 2 Procedures B IEP/IFSP Standards: Team Members 34 CFR § 300.321 3 B IEP/IFSP Standards: When IEP Must Be In Effect 34 CFR § 300.320 1 B IEP/IFSP Standards: Progress Reporting 34 CFR § 76.731 2 Minn. R. 3525.2810, Subp. 1 B IEP/IFSP Standards: Secondary Transition 34 CFR § 300.320(b) 1 C IEP/IFSP Standards: Requirements for IFSP Meetings 34 CFR § 303.342 1 C IEP/IFSP Standards: IFSP Required Content 34 CFR § 303.344 2 C IEP/IFSP Standards: Periodic Review 34 CFR § 303.342 1

Complaint Decisions

Complaint files were reviewed for records of formal complaints filed regarding Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) and no formal complaints were opened during the relevant time period.

Interviews

Online interviews were completed by building administrators, special education staff, general education teachers and special education paraprofessionals, with follow-up telephone and on-site interviews completed as deemed necessary.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District (0113-01) 20 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

FS 1 FS 1 FS 1 FS 2 FS 2 FS 2 FS 3 FS 3 FS 3 FS 4 FS 4 FS 4 FS 5-8 FS 5-8 FS 5-8 Disability CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR ASD 60 65 100 28 26 0 12 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 20 0 0 80 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 100 50 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 67 60 0 33 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 52 52 0 28 35 67 15 13 33 5 0 0 0 0 0 OHD 65 64 100 32 33 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 64 80 100 36 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 95 93 0 5 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District - Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report - 2017-18 21 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 Hisp. – Hispanic, regardless of race White – white, non-Hispanic

Amer. Amer. Amer. Asian Asian Asian Hisp. Hisp. Hisp. Black Black Black White White White Disability Indian Indian Indian CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR ASD 11 11 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 16 17 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 1 1 0 CSTSR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 DCD-SP 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 DD 12 13 25 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 0 0 8 11 33 DHH 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 0 EBD 26 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 50 100 14 11 17 OHD 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 25 28 17 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 24 20 25 0 0 0 67 33 0 0 0 0 18 19 0 SLI 14 17 0 0 0 0 0 33 0 0 0 0 12 7 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 25 0 1 1 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

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.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District - Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report - 2017-18 22 Age by Disability

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

0-2 0-2 0-2 3-5 3-5 3-5 6 6 6 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 10 10 10 11 11 11 12 12 12 Disability 7 CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR ASD 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 0 27 38 0 17 25 0 11 13 0 23 9 0 13 15 0 6 8 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 12 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 8 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 83 83 75 58 62 0 71 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 17 17 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 EBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 19 0 11 13 0 8 9 0 27 23 0 29 31 0 OHD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 28 33 0 23 27 0 13 15 0 53 38 0 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 6 0 28 27 0 38 45 0 40 38 0 6 0 0 SLI 0 0 0 32 31 0 29 33 0 45 38 0 33 19 0 17 7 0 8 9 0 7 8 0 0 8 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13 13 13 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 17 17 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 21 21 Disability CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR CC Srv RR ASD 21 21 0 23 25 50 10 12 25 7 11 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-MM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DCD-SP 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DHH 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EBD 21 11 0 31 42 0 43 35 75 33 33 0 11 7 0 25 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 OHD 11 11 0 23 25 50 19 29 0 20 33 0 33 36 0 50 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLD 42 53 0 15 8 0 19 12 0 33 22 100 28 36 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SLI 5 5 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SMI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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.

Walker-Hackensack-Akeley School District - Special Education Program Compliance Review Final Report - 2017-18 23