Folsom Cordova Unified School District Report

Folsom Cordova Unified School District Revised Special Education Review February 3, 2012 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM February 3, 2012 Deborah Bettencourt, Superintendent Folsom Cordova Unified School District 125 Bidwell Street Folsom, CA 95630 Dear Superintendent Bettencourt: An initial final version of this report was issued on October 25, 2011. This revised final version was developed to response to concerns about the inaccurate data provided by the district regarding due- process hearings. The changes are in blue text and begin on the last paragraph of page 14. In July 2011, the Folsom Cordova Unified School District and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement to provide a review of the district’s special education programs and services. Specifically, the agreement states that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Organization study of Special Education Department, to improve communication internally and externally, from central office to school site. 2. Review administrative staffing structure and make recommendations to improve efficiency, if necessary. 3. Review legal fee costs and make recommendations for cost containment. 4. Review status of CDE special education complaints and make recommendations to reduce, resolve and prevent. 5. Review role of principal in special education delivery system and how to develop consistency between school sites and central office. 6. Review special education procedures and policies to assure current and consistent district wide. 7. Review role and responsibilities of program specialists and make recommendations to align with Education Code. 8. Review role of special education teachers in regards to case management of refer- rals, timelines, process and procedures to assure appropriate timeline and services are being provided to students with exceptional needs. FCMAT Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer . . 1300 17th Street - CITY CENTRE, Bakersfield, CA 93 . 301-4533 Telephone 661-6 . 36-4611 Fax 661-63 . 6-4647 422 Petaluma Blvd North, Suite. C, Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone: 707-775-2850 Fax: 707-775-2854 www.fcmat.org Administrative Agent: Christine L. Frazier - Office of Kern County Superintendent of Schools 9. Review criteria for providing extended year and related services, including transportation and 1:1 aides and make recommendations to assure consistent application of criteria during the IEP process. This revised report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. On behalf of FCMAT, we appreciate the opportunity to serve you and extend our thanks to all the staff of the Folsom Cordova Unified School District for their cooperation and assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of contents About FCMAT .........................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................1 Executive Summary ........................................................................3 Findings and Recommendations .....................................................5 Communication ..............................................................................................5 Organizational Structure ...........................................................................11 Legal Fees .......................................................................................................13 Compliance Complaints .............................................................................17 Role of the Principal ....................................................................................21 Policies and Procedures .............................................................................23 Role of Program Specialists ......................................................................27 Case Management Time Lines and Policies/Procedures ................29 Extended School Year ................................................................................31 Transportation...............................................................................................33 1-to-1 Instructional Assistants ..................................................................35 Appendices ............................................................................................37 FolsoM cordova UniFied school district ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM iii ABOUT FCMAT About FCMAT FCMAT’s primary mission is to assist California’s local K-14 educational agencies to identify, prevent, and resolve financial and data management challenges. FCMAT provides fiscal and data management assistance, professional development training, product development and other related school business and data services. FCMAT’s fiscal and management assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices and efficient operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and share information. FCMAT may be requested to provide fiscal crisis or management assistance by a school district, charter school, community college, county office of education, the state Superintendent of Public Instruction, or the Legislature. When a request or assignment is received, FCMAT assembles a study team that works closely with the local education agency to define the scope of work, conduct on-site fieldwork and provide a written report with findings and recommendations to help resolve issues, overcome challenges and plan for the future. Studies by Fiscal Year 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11* 10/11** *Projected **Actual FolsoM cordova UniFied school district seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help local educational agencies operate more effec- tively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) arm of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) and also maintains DataGate, the FCMAT/CSIS software LEAs use for CSIS services. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. Assembly Bill 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsi- bility for CSIS and its statewide data management work. Assembly Bill 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county office of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. Assembly Bill 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. iv ABOUT FCMAT In January 2006, SB 430 (charter schools) and AB 1366 (community colleges) became law and expanded FCMAT’s services to those types of LEAs. Since 1992, FCMAT has been engaged to perform nearly 850 reviews for LEAs, including school districts, county offices of education, charter schools and community colleges. The Kern County Superintendent of Schools is the administrative agent for FCMAT. The team is led by Joel D. Montero, Chief Executive Officer, with funding derived through appropriations in the state budget and a modest fee schedule for charges to requesting agencies. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 1 INTRODUCTION Introduction Background Located in Northern California approximately 20 miles northwest of Sacramento, the Folsom Cordova Unified School District has approximately 19,000 students and 1,790 staff members. The district has 22 elementary schools, four middle schools, three high schools, two alternative schools, two continuation schools, and a community day school. According to records provided to FCMAT, approximately 2,500 district students have Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and 107 special education teachers serving in the following programs: mild to moderate, moderate to severe, emotionally disturbed, preschool, language development class and autism. The Special Education Department and Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) administra- tive staff is composed of a SELPA director, coordinator, program supervisor, and a behavior specialist. The department also has four program specialists that are not considered management positions. In 2007, the district became a single-district SELPA, increasing its special education revenue by approximately $2 million. During the past four years, the district has undergone a number of changes including beginning to transition programs for the severely handicapped from the county office of education to the district in 2007. The changes in leadership structure that resulted from the district becoming its own SELPA that year occurred as the district experienced a surge of growth in average daily attendance (ADA). In July 2011, the district requested that FCMAT review its special education, programs and services. The study agreement specifies that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Organization study of special education department, to improve communica- tion internally and externally, from central office to school sites. 2. Review administrative staffing structure and make recommendations to improve efficiency, if necessary. 3. Review legal fee costs and make recommendations for cost containment. 4. Review status of CDE special education complaints and make recommenda- tions to reduce, resolve and prevent. 5. Review role of principal in special education delivery system and how to develop consistency between school sites and central office. 6. Review special education procedures and policies to assure current and consis- tent district wide. 7. Review role and responsibilities of Program Specialists and make recommen- dations to align with education code. 8. Review role of special education teachers in regards to case management of referrals, timelines, process and procedures to assure appropriate timeline and services are being provided to students with exceptional needs. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 2 INTRODUCTION 9. Review criteria for providing extended year and related services, including transportation and 1:1 aides, and make recommendations to assure consistent application of criteria during IEP process. Study Guidelines FCMAT visited the district on September 12-15, 2011 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections: I. Communication II. Organizational Structure III. Legal Fees IV. Compliance Complaints V. Role of the Principal VI. Policies and Process VII. Role of the Program Specialists VIII. Case Management Time Lines and Policies/Procedures IX. Extended School Year X. Transportation XI. 1-to-1 Instructional Assistants Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: William P. Gillaspie Ed.D. JoAnn Murphy FCMAT Chief Management Analyst FCMAT Consultant Sacramento, CA Santee, CA Leonel Martínez Anne Stone FCMAT Public Information Specialist FCMAT Consultant Bakersfield, CA Mission Viejo, CA Trina L. Frazier* Administrator Fresno County SELPA Fresno, CA *As a member of this study team, this consultant was not representing her respective employer but was working solely as an independent contractor for FCMAT. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The Folsom Cordova Unified School District is a rapidly growing district of approximately 19,000 students. Four years ago, the district applied for and was granted single-district Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) designation by the California Department of Education. In the past 15 years, the district has had seven directors of special education. Factors such as rapid growth, leadership changes, and changes in the SELPA structure created external and internal communication problems, resulting in a lack of confidence in the operations and management of special education programs. Since 2009, the California Department of Education has investigated 17 compliance cases filed by parents and determined that the district was out of compliance in 15. In large part, this is because of a lack of consistency in leadership and ineffective parent relationships. The super- intendent publicly recognized the systemic problems with communication and district follow- through and, along with the district governing board, commissioned this study. Through extensive interviews with staff, administrators, and parents, FCMAT confirmed the Special Education Department’s significant internal and external communication problems. In addition, a lack of clarity in leadership roles and responsibilities has created systemic issues regarding trust and confidence in the department. Members of the special education leadership team are confused about specific areas of responsibility and their position’s level of authority in the departmental organizational structure. This confusion extends throughout all levels of the Special Education Department. The site principals indicated they have implied responsibility without formal authority, which causes delays in critical decision-making and in providing the school site staff with necessary direction. The Special Education Department provides minimal written and oral communication to the school sites. Phone calls and e-mails are not answered in a timely manner. As a result, the sites lack confidence in the department’s direction and communication when it is received. Information also varies depending on the department administrator, which leads to an inconsis- tent message and confusion among the staff. The department lacks a policy and procedural manual to guide special education practice and decision-making authority. This leads to confusion and procedural mistakes that result in complaints and noncompliance findings. Special education administrators are reluctant to put practices in writing although this is often requested by site administrators. Procedural guidance is needed for providing extended school year services, transportation, and 1-to-1 staffing ratios for instructional aides. Principals embrace special education on their school sites with little direction from the Special Education Department. Inconsistencies in communication and the lack of procedural definition impede the overall effectiveness of program delivery and compliance. The lack of responsiveness has affected the efficiency of communication and follow-through with parents. Parent phone calls are frequently transferred to various staff members. As a result, parents do not know who to call with their concerns, and many have lost confidence in the special education administration’s ability to help resolve problems. Some district parents fear retaliation if they raise concerns with the department. It will take time to establish trust and confidence in district special education leadership, but consistency in communication and follow-through can help accomplish this goal. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The total annual cost for district legal representation has increased from $46,343 to $176,146 over the past three years because of three primary factors: 1) potential increases in litigation; 2) breakdowns in communication between parents and the district, and 3) the failure to follow through on mediated agreements. The special education administrative department is organized in a vertical organizational reporting structure that frequently causes delays in efficiency and inconsistency in making deci- sions. Decisions are made at the director level and inconsistently received by the appropriate administrator for dissemination. The local plan was approved in 2007 and has not been revised since then. The nine board poli- cies on special education are under review by the district, and FCMAT reviewed a preliminary draft of a procedural manual. The review found that approximately 30 areas need to be added to the document. The draft received no input from site administrators, special education teachers and related service providers. The district should postpone distribution of the manual until it is procedurally sound and reviewed in a collaborative manner. There is no policy and procedure that thoroughly outlines the role and responsibilities of a case manager. The roles and responsibilities of these positions have varying degrees of acceptance throughout the district. Some district special education teachers do not meet time lines or follow policies and procedures, which lead to noncompliance. Evaluations are not used to address these noncompliant issues, and the district evaluation form is geared toward general education teachers. Principals are not aware of teacher noncompliance and are not trained to evaluate special education teachers. The Special Education Department has new leadership and a strong commitment for program and structural change from the superintendent and board. While the department has significant issues with communication, leadership, and documented procedures, FCMAT has provided a series of recommendations to support systems change. Successful implementation will lead to a stronger organization that will ultimately result in more effective programs and services for special education students. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 COMMUNICATION Findings and Recommendations Communication External The Folsom Cordova Unified School District’s planning for the return of severely handicapped students from Sacramento County Office of Education programs in 2007 and the training of the special education and general education staff was inadequate. The staff was not fully prepared for the return of classes and severely handicapped students. There was a lack of communication and support regarding the implementation plan from the Special Education Department to the school sites where the programs were transferred. School site administrators were not aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to the new programs and students on their campuses. FCMAT found a systemic lack of verbal and written communication from the Special Education Department to the school sites. The department’s administrators and program specialists frequently do not respond to e-mails and phone calls, and follow-up with school sites is very poor. As a result, site principals seek support and guidance from higher level special education administrators only when they have serious issues that require immediate assistance. However, when this type of assistance is requested, the special education administration frequently does not respond. Site principals are unclear regarding their role in relation to the special education staff and students on their campuses. The Special Education Department provides no communication when staff members are assigned or reassigned to their sites. The department also does not communicate with principals about the roles and responsibilities of the special education staff and programs on their site. Principals are not regularly invited to the IEP meetings of students who are placed at off-site (nonpublic school) programs. This occurs even when the student may potentially transfer to the principal’s school site. Similarly to the special education staff, site principals are unclear who to approach for support and guidance on special education related issues. Another communication issue arises when program specialists and principals do not consistently receive due process and complaint information that involves a student on their site. The special education administration should immediately convey this critical information to the site leader- ship and program specialists. Furthermore, due process information and outcomes are not used to prevent further complaints and mediation. The department has no special education policy and procedure manual to guide special educa- tion practice and decision-making. Subsequently, there is no clear written direction, guidelines, or procedures for the Special Education Department staff and site principals. No processes exist to guide the staff in addressing questions and seeking support, and it is unclear who staff members should approach for support; guidance in making requests for services (such as 1-to-1 assistant support); or to determine when a requested service or support is appropriate. The special education administration and program specialists are reluctant to document anything in writing when attempting to resolve special education related issues and problems. This is frustrating for school site staff, and compounds the lack of direction and program ineffectiveness. Overall, administrators lack decision-making skills. They often provide vague, contradictory, or no answers, change procedures, and fail to follow through. The school site staff and internal staff are also frustrated because information varies from administrator to administrator, creating confusion. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 6 COMMUNICATION This ineffective communication has created serious issues that the principals and school site staff are still attempting to rectify. Lack of policy and procedures, poorly defined roles and responsibil- ities, ineffective communication, and nonresponsiveness have debilitated the overall structure of the organization and led to a significant lack of confidence in the Special Education Department administration. These communication issues were further aggravated by inconsistency in the SELPA/special education leadership because of the high turnover rate of SELPA and special education directors. Each of the directors had a different philosophy and leadership style. The leadership turnover rate and return of programs coupled with the rapid growth in district average daily attendance (ADA) further compounded communication problems. Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop centralized structured plans and processes in the Special Education Department and at the school sites. 2. Implement a practice of a having the Special Education Department respond to e-mails and telephone calls within 24 hours after they are received. 3. Ensure that the policy and procedural manual is reviewed by a small committee before it is finalized and released. 4. Clearly define the role and responsibilities of the special education admin- istrators, program specialists, and support staff. This information should be provided to the Special Education Department and school site staff. 5. Ensure that the special education managers communicate a common message. 6. Ensure that the information provided to the school sites is consistent with the processes and procedures that will be developed. 7. Provide the Special Education Department and school site staff with training and collaboration on the extended school year, specialized transportation, special circumstances instructional assistance (these topics should be included the policy and procedure manual). 8. Ensure all the necessary staff members are properly notified when special education staff members are assigned or reassigned at the school sites. 9. Ensure that the principals are notified of IEP meetings for students in off-site placements if the student may potentially attend classes at their site. 10. Ensure that all the appropriate staff receives notice and documentation of due process, mediation and compliance complaints and that the information is used to prevent further complaints. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 COMMUNICATION Parents A 1998 report by researchers Weissberg and Greenberg states the following: Implicit in national educational Goals 1 and 8 (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, public Law 103-227) is the concept that family and school are partners in prevention of school failure for children. Family-school relationships have been identified as a primary domain of protective factors for children, particularly those living in high-risk circumstances Special needs children require a high level of participation and communication between home and school. Parent participation and communication with the district is lacking, resulting in due process actions, noncompliant IEPs, inappropriate instructional programs provided to students, and a high level of frustration among many parents. The lack of responsiveness from the Special Education Department has affected the efficiency of communication and follow-through with parents. Parent phone calls are frequently transferred to various staff members, and parents are uncertain who to contact to resolve issues. As a result, many parents have lost confidence in the ability of the special education administration to help resolve problems and implement mediated agreements. Parents who attended a FCMAT public forum consistently stated it is extremely difficult to get a timely response to phone calls or e-mails from the department and school sites. They also expressed a high degree of distrust in the district because of a lack of communication. The Special Education Department does not provide consistent direction to parents, who reported that they receive different answers to the same question depending on which employee they ask. Family members who have a different culture, values, or language are more hesitant to interact freely and openly with school personnel. Many parents view the school as unwelcoming, distant, and inflex- ible, and they cited a lack of communication with 1-to-1 instructional aides. Interviews with staff members indicated that aides were often told not to speak to parents and were denied access to a student’s IEP. It will take time to establish trust and confidence in district special education leadership. Parents fear retaliation when they raise issues with the district, and this problem should be discussed with parent groups and the administration. The use of attorneys to represent the district in the IEP process has created animosity between parents and the staff. Numerous parents have concerns that the district sometimes sends to IEP meetings staff members who are not authorized to make decisions about resources and services for students. As a result, meetings are often rescheduled until someone with authority becomes involved. Documentation indicates that the district has not followed through on some mediated agreements that were developed in good faith between parents and staff. Recommendations The district should: 1. Determine who is authorized to make decisions in the IEP process and imple- ment procedures to ensure that an administrative designee is present at all IEPs and has the authority to make decisions about placement and services. 2. Develop a tracking system to ensure there is follow through in implementing mediated agreements, and parents have the opportunity to provide feedback on progress. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 8 COMMUNICATION 3. Develop a department vision, mission, and specific goals for special education with involvement from community advisory committee to ensure the parent perspective is heard. 4. Develop consistency in handling calls from parents to administrators in the special education office. The district should establish a hotline in the special education office that is monitored daily to provide a system of transferring calls to the appropriate administrator. 5. Provide information on the district website so that parents know who to contact to resolve issues at the lowest level. 6. Develop repeated contacts and interactions with parents to improve trust and communication skills. 7. Consider the following actions to promote trust and improve communication with parents: a. Improve communication with parents of all cultures and languages. b. Share information and resources. c. Follow through on promised actions. d. Openly discuss objectives. e. Prepare for meetings. 8. Explore available options for updating parents regarding special education issues through e-mail, telephone contact, parent meetings, etc. 9. Provide principals with training in disability awareness and cultural diversity to ensure that families of students with disabilities feel welcome on the campus. 10. Annually monitor success in this area through parent input sessions, surveys or other appropriate methods. 11. Ensure that parents receive timely and consistent responses from the district on all special education matters. Internal The roles and responsibilities of the Special Education Department leadership are unclear and frequently change. The site principals indicated they have responsibility without authority, which causes delays in critical decision-making and in providing the school site staff with the necessary direction. As a result, they are confused about the direction of the department. Although weekly management meetings were held last year, the agenda was not focused. Little time was allotted for discussing process, making decisions, and clarifying roles and necessary procedures. The clerical support staff did not meet with the director to discuss current projects, upcoming events, track deadlines, report progress on goals and/or the status of workflow. This has created an environment where support staff members work in isolation rather than with a coordinated effort. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 COMMUNICATION Impromptu and emergency meetings were frequently called by administration requesting charts, graphs, and various data points with little notice or time for preparation. As a result, the work- flow in support of special education limits the staff’s ability to respond to phone calls and e-mails in a timely manner. These unscheduled meetings and information demands could be avoided with ongoing consistently scheduled meetings with the support staff. The district has established a process for event/meeting planning that does not function consis- tently because the appropriate forms and process (event planning forms) are often not used. Events requiring agendas, facility use, presentations, and refreshments could be planned, orga- nized and communicated more effectively by using the appropriate forms and process. Recommendations The district should: 1. Ensure that the special education administration conducts regular one-on-one meetings with the clerical support staff to report on workflow, track dead- lines, and solve problems. 2. Decrease the use of impromptu and emergency meetings and replace them with ongoing consistent planning time with all staff. 3. Assign the newly appointed special education director to clarify roles and responsibilities for all department administrators and provide appropriate support for solving problems and making decisions. 4. Authorize administrators to make consistent, well-articulated decisions in their areas of responsibility. 5. Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of all administrative and clerical staff. 6. Create agendas for management meetings that are well planned and focus on clearly delineated goals, outcomes and expectations. 7. Determine what information items are critical to the organization and develop an internal communication for dissemination to the staff, which will save time for discussion and problem solving in the department. 8. Use the district processes for event/meeting planning to effectively communi- cate with participants and other district staff. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 10 COMMUNICATION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Organizational Structure The district’s special education administrative department is organized in a vertical type organiza- tional reporting structure. Decisions are made at the director level and inconsistently received by the appropriate administrator for dissemination. This delays critical decisions and resolution of issues that have department wide impact. Greater efficiency could be achieved with a flatter organizational structure, emphasizing a division between elementary and secondary levels. Each level would be supported by two program special- ists and a coordinator of special education who is directly responsible for day-to-day operations. A third coordinator could provide support services related to project or adjunct duties. For example, completion of the Special Education Self Review (SESR) would be facilitated by this coordinator. District coordinators work a 205-day contract year. Increasing the contract year to 222 days for coordinators of health services and special education would be appropriate because of the ongoing programmatic needs of special education and health services required in extended-year programs and the preschool children eligible for transition to the district on their third birthday. The Special Education Department has assumed responsibility for administering the Workability program for special needs students. Program oversight for Workability has been the responsibility of the director of special education with coordination by a program specialist. The district has used .4 full-time equivalents (FTEs) of Workability to fund the program specialist position. The district has the following two options in managing this program. • Continue with a split funded position. • Move the Workability coordination to a teacher on special assignment or a classified position under the director or the coordinator of secondary special education if the district needs to provide 100% of program specialist time to high school programs and services. The clerical support allotted to the SELPA and Special Education Department is adequate to provide services; but does not operate as efficiently as possible. No one position has responsibility for directing workflow among the clerical support staff, and the staff works in isolation with little overlap and coordination. Minimum administrative direction and support are provided to help with setting goals, reporting progress, tracking deadlines, or solving problems. Recommendations The district should: 1. Design an administrative structure that defines decision-making authority and is responsive to school site, district and parent needs. 2. Increase the work year for the coordinators of health services and special education from 205 days to 222 days per year. 3. Designate a clerical lead staff person to oversee the workflow in the Special Education Department and develop a new job description if appropriate. 4. Set up one-on-one meetings between the director and clerical support for the SELPA and district to ensure consistency. 5. Analyze appropriate staffing for Workability. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 12 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 LEGAL FEES Legal Fees In reviewing legal costs incurred over the past three years, FCMAT confirmed that legal fees paid by the district have significantly increased while the total number of students identified with individualized education programs (IEPs) has decreased as shown by the following two tables. Special Education Enrollment in the District Number of special Year education students 2008-09 2,638 2009-10 2,302 2010-11 2,400 Legal Costs Over a Three-Year Period Year District Representation District cost for parent representation 2008-09 $46,343.68 $32,669.26 2009-10 $157,664.94 $51,667.56 2010-11 $176,146.56 $39,229.80 Although there are no definitive reasons for the significant increase, several reasons were discussed by the staff. The first was an increase in the actual number of due process filings during the 2009-10 fiscal year as shown by the following table. A few of those were resolved that year, but several were continued and not resolved until 2010-11. Revised Number of Due Process Filings by Year Number of Due Process Cases Number of Due Process Cases According Year According to District to Office of Adminstrative Hearings 2008-09 2 8 2009-10 9 12 2010-11 6 18 2011-12 6 3 A second reason was significant communication problems between the Special Education Department and school sites, between the Special Education Department and parents, and within the Special Education Department. A third reason was the absences of the special educa- tion director during the 2009-10 school year. These absences were due to illness and resulted in an increased reliance on district representation at mediations and some IEP meetings. The prac- tice of assigning the district’s attorney to attend certain IEP meetings, mediations, and settlement conferences continued in 2010-11. FCMAT developed an analysis of the issues resolved in due process filings. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides for mediation and due process hearings to resolve disputes related to educating disabled children to ensure that each child receives a free appro- priate public education (FAPE) tailored to his or her unique needs. Issues that resulted in a due process filing in this SELPA included requests for nonpublic agency services rather than district services, denial of requests for related services, denial of an independent evaluation, and failure to provide the services that were in the student’s IEP. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 14 LEGAL FEES In a report written in 2006, the former assistant superintendent of special education recom- mended the district pursue Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and training in techniques to resolve difficulties at the IEP level. The report included the following: If filed, though, there are practices that a district can have in place for alternative dispute resolution, like Solutions Panels, or to help work through difficult IEPs, like Facilitated or Guided IEPs. Training in alternative dispute resolution and Facilitated or Guided IEPs is recommended. One of the elements that is most effective about such trainings is the positive, effective communication practices they all include, which help every IEP member. Training such as facilitated IEPs has not been made available to staff and ADR has not been established in the district. Facilitated IEPs are conducted in a specific way to provide all parties with an opportunity to be heard and address issues in a nonconfrontational setting. Contentious IEPs held with a trained facilitator are often resolved at the IEP level without incurring legal costs while establishing more positive long-term relationships with parents. ADR is designed to resolve issues that would ordinarily result in a due process filing, but it cannot prevent or delay these filings. Further, ADR is difficult to provide in a single-district SELPA because it is intended to have an unbiased trained panel review the dispute and help parents and the district arrive at a mutually acceptable solution. However, by collaborating with nearby districts or SELPAs, ADR can be established and effective. Both practices are designed to reduce legal costs, establish positive relationships with families, and provide students with an appropriate special education program. School administration reported that school site teams do not meet with the special education district staff to review IEP information before the IEP meeting. These meetings are often referred to as “staffing” or “file reviews” and are intended to discuss any additional supports or services a student may need, or any IEP meeting requests that may require a district response. The school sites were provided with training on compliance issues in August 2011, but admin- istration indicated that the training has not resulted in fewer filings. Sites are unclear about how their actions led to a due process filing, what this process means to the district and school site, and how they can prevent filings from reoccurring. However, the sites understood that they need written procedures and responsive and accurate support from the Special Education Department. In the past, site administrators, school site special education staff and often program specialists were not informed when a due process was filed and were not included in the discussions or review of records. They were informed only of the results of the resolution meeting or mediation and provided with instructions on how they should proceed. The new special education director recently changed this process to include site and department staff members when a due process if filed. The Special Education Department did not arrange for meetings with those responsible for implementing the resolution or mediation plan to ensure that the agreement decisions were implemented. Administration indicated that items in an agreement were sometimes not followed, and another due process was filed. In the initial version of this report, FCMAT reported the number of due-process hearings as provided by the district Special Education Department. However, the numbers of due-process filings on the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Web page are different from those reported by the district. These differences are reflected in the revised table shown on the previous page. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 LEGAL FEES The difference in numbers occurred for several reasons. The primary reason is that the Special Education Department had to research this information for FCMAT at the time of the study. This information was not readily available and therefore errors were made, and some filings were not reported. A second and important reason for the differences is the way filings are tracked by districts and OAH. If a due-process filing is withdrawn and then refiled, OAH counts this as two filings while a district would count this as one. This would also occur if a filing was found to be insuffi- cient by OAH, returned to the party filing the request, and resubmitted. OAH would count this as two filings, while a district would count this as one. Finally, a filing that has been carried over to the current year was counted in the current year, while OAH counts this in the year filed. The modification in the number of filings from the original data in the report would not change any recommendations made in that report. However, it is important for a district to have accu- rate data regarding due process filings. This data enables a district to determine whether specific areas need to be addressed in programs, services, providers, curriculum, etc. Therefore, FCMAT added a recommendation concerning that issue. Recommendations The district should: 1. Reduce the reliance on district legal representatives at IEP meetings by training special education district staff in techniques such as facilitated or guided IEPs. Information regarding facilitated IEPs is attached Appendix A to this report. 2. Develop and train site, district, and parents in ADR in conjunction with other SELPAs or districts in the area. Information on ADR is attached Appendix B to this report. 3. Provide training for site administrators in specific identified areas that have resulted in due process filings, and provide strategies to appropriately address these issues at their school site. 4. Provide school site special education teams with this training. 5. Ensure that site administrators, site teams, and representatives from the Special Education Department meet before IEPs to discuss programs or services whenever the staff needs additional guidance in determining whether these are appropriate. These staffings will assist with the difficulty of having district special education staff at the IEP meetings. 6. Ensure that site administrators, site teams and Special Education Department staff are involved with any due process filing from the time of the filing or before and are an integral part of the process, including the resolution meeting or mediation when appropriate. This will enable the staff members that work most closely with the student to understand the process and be a part of the solution. 7. Ensure that once an agreement is reached, the staff members responsible for implementing the agreement meet with a Special Education Department administrator to review the agreement, develop a plan to implement it, and determine dates for follow-up of the plan. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 16 LEGAL FEES 8. Develop a system to accurately and completely track all due process filings, including the following: • The dates of the initial filing and as applicable Withdrawal of filing Return of filing for insufficiency Resolution meeting, including rescheduled meeting(s) Mediation, including rescheduled meeting(s) Due process hearing Follow-up meeting(s) • Student information Grade Program and services Issue(s) listed in the filing • Specific resolution of issues • Responsible staff for follow-up with dates for review Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 COMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Compliance Complaints A complaint may be filed with the California Department of Education (CDE) when there is an allegation that a district has violated federal and state law and regulations pertaining to the education of a disabled student. In addition, through compliance monitoring, the state may determine that a district has noncompliant items that must be resolved. Therefore, CDE compli- ance was reviewed in the following two areas: • Complaints filed with the CDE by families in the SELPA • The SESR The most prevalent noncompliant items in complaints filed by families included failure to perform the following: • Adhere to time lines, assess in all areas of suspected disabilities • Provide records in five business days • Provide the written assessment report at the IEP meeting • Implement the IEP • Provide required notices • Make the IEP available to the general education teachers Similarly to due processes, site administrators, site special education staff, and in many cases district special education staffs were not aware of complaints filed and were not included in the response. They often first learned of the complaint when they were informed of the required corrective actions, and no follow-up meetings were scheduled to ensure that these actions were completed. Even when site administrators were informed, they were not provided with the guid- ance and support needed to resolve these items. Of the 87 items found out of compliance in the SESR, 36 were systemic. These items were similar to those found in the CDE complaints, but included other areas because of the specific review of files. Categories of the 36 Systemic Noncompliant Items Category Number of items Time Lines 2 Assessment issues 4 General Education participation/information 6 Transition 11 Forms not complete or provided 4 IEP document missing items or not documenting consideration of item 7 Behavior 2 FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 18 COMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS The SESR has very specific steps and time lines to correct the systemic and nonsystemic items found out of compliance. The Special Education Department completed the initial steps in resolving the systemic items and is awaiting the written response from CDE so that the district can begin the final portion of the review. The district initially was required to complete another review of a specific number of files for each of the 36 items to ensure that less than a specific percentage were out of compliance. However, a recent review of CDE by the Federal Department of Education resulted in the new requirement that the district review a specific number and type of files to ensure that the items are in compliance in all of them. The report indicated for example: “The District Staff will sample half of the student referrals for the most recent six months, up to twenty students, to ensure that the LEA provides parents with a written notice that their student is being referred to determine eligibility for special education and the reason for the referral.” or “The District staff will sample half of the student referrals since completing the review, up to twenty students, to ensure that the Assessment Plan explains the type of assessments to be conducted.” This is a significant effort that is required to be completed by November 1, 2011. Site special education staffs are not held accountable for noncompliant items that are within their scope of responsibility. Some examples are developing and providing to a parent an assessment plan within the required time line or inviting all mandatory IEP team members to the IEP on the required form. Site administrators do not have the authority to evaluate the special education staff in these areas, nor do they have the training required. Recommendations The district should: 1. Provide site administrators and site special education staff members with additional training on what constitutes noncompliant items, how to prevent them from occurring at the school site, and how to make the required correc- tions. 2. Involve school site administration and the special education staff as well as the district office special education staff when responding to a CDE complaint by assigning them to review the document and the documentation required when responding. 3. Meet with the school site staffs that are responsible for working with the student to review the corrective action and help the site implement the corrective actions. 4. Schedule follow-up meetings after initial implementation of the corrective actions to ensure that they have been implemented as required. 5. Immediately begin the file reviews of the 87 noncompliant items. 6. Complete these reviews no later than two weeks before the submission dead- line, and submit the findings for review to the special education director to enable any corrections or additions to be included before the data is entered. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 COMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS 7. Work with human resources in conjunction with the Special Education Department and site administrators to develop training for administrators to evaluate special education teachers and support staffs to include special education compliance. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 20 COMPLIANCE COMPLAINTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL Role of the Principal Principals embrace special education on their school sites with little direction from the Special Education Department. The inconsistencies outlined in the communication section of this report and the lack of procedural definition impede the overall effectiveness of program delivery and compliance. Principals never receive written direction from the Special Education Department. Phone calls and e-mails frequently receive no response. All administrators would benefit from training once the procedural handbook is completed. Recommendations The district should: 1. Provide principals with written procedural and operational guidelines for special education. 2. Follow the recommendations of the communication section of this report. 3. Provide principals with training in special education and the IEP process. 4. Develop a principal leadership team to provide ongoing feedback regarding special education communication, leadership and efficiency. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 22 ROLE OF THE PRINCIPAL Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Policies and Procedures FCMAT reviewed special education procedures and policies in three areas: the local plan, board policies and the draft procedure manual. The local plan has not been revised since it was approved in 2007. Several areas may need to be reviewed. However, it is anticipated that CDE will require specific changes in the plan within the next year, probably regarding special education services for incarcerated students ages 18-22. The district has nine district board policies or administrative regulations on special education and is in the process of reviewing and revising all board policies. The policies and the date they were most recently approved are as follows: • BP 0430(a) – Comprehensive Local Plan for Special Education April 2009 • AR 5141.24(a) – Specialized Health Care Services August 2011 • AR 5144.2(b-g) – Suspension and Expulsion/Due Process (students with disabilities) May 2011 • BP 6159 – Individualized Education Program January 2001 • AR 6159 – IEP Program January 2001 • BP 6159.1 – Procedural Safeguards and Complaints for Special Education January 2001 • BP 6159.2 – Nonpublic, Nonsectarian School and Agency Services for Special Education August 1999 • AR 6159.4 – Behavioral Interventions for Special Education Students January 2001 • AR 4112.23 – Special Education Staff (under Personnel) November 2007 The policies and administrative regulations written and approved in 2011 are current and may not need to be reviewed or revised. Those written before that time will need the review and prob- able revision. In particular AR 4112.23 reflects the resource specialist/special day class model of special education instruction. The district provides special education instruction using different terminology, specialized academic instruction, which aligns with the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS). School administration stated that the district provides instruction through a learning center model at some sites, which does not reflect the resource/special day class model. The district has developed a draft procedure manual that was written primarily by one program specialist with some input obtained from other Special Education Department staff members during a two-week period in the summer. This is a well written document considering the limited time in which it was written. Although site special education staff and site administrators were told about the document, they did not have an opportunity for input. Specific sections of the document may be inaccurate or may not reflect current practice. The staff expressed concern that releasing the document in its current state could decrease trust in the special education district staff’s knowledge, even if staff members realize it is in draft form. The document accurately covers many procedures and provides specific information needed by the sites; however, it also contains information on student study team and section 504, which may be unnecessary. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 24 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Interviews with the staff, a review of due process resolutions and complaint corrective actions, and review of the systemic noncompliance items from the SESR indicate that a significant number of procedures should be included in a final procedure manual. Twenty-five areas should be added to the document. The areas identified may require a separate section or the addition of information added to a current section, and additional areas may be identified as staff members review the document. The identified areas are as follows: • A flow chart of Special Education Department staff with each employee’s specific duties and responsibilities so that staff members know who to call when a specific question arises. • The definition of least restrictive environment. As stated in the August 15, 2011 workshop “Students must be educated with their non-disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate. Supplementary aides and services must be provided to enable disabled students to access general education. Only the most severely disabled students should be provided with separate schooling.” This definition can be used as the basis for many sections of the procedure manual. • The continuum of educational options offered in the districts, with descriptions of each, including nonpublic schools, state schools, etc. • A clear definition of accommodations and modifications and the responsibility of the general education teacher in providing these based on a student’s IEP. • The definition of due process and complaints to clarify which issues may result in each of these actions. • The process that the district and CDE follow when a due process or complaint is filed. • The responsibility of the site administrator and site staff in responding to a complaint and/or resolving the complaint. • The responsibility of the site administrator and site in responding to a due process and/ or resolving the issues that resulted in the due process filing. • An explanation of how and when transition IEPs should be held for students changing programs from one school to another at the same level or from one level to another such as from elementary to middle school. • The steps for completing interim placements for a student who enrolls in the district when schools are not in session and how this information is provided to the school site on time. • The process for completing all interim placements, who is responsible for the paperwork, who decides where the student will be placed and the process for ensuring that the receiving school is prepared for the student. An intake procedure form developed by the Special Education Department with input from sites. This form could be completed at the time of the interim placement so that a student’s specific requirements are available when the student comes to school the first day. If a behavior support plan is part of the IEP, this plan would be available before the student’s first day, and any necessary personnel could be present the day the student arrives. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES • The process for transitioning district students from a nonpublic school to district- operated programs, who will attend IEP meetings when this issue is discussed, how to inform the site the student may attend, and the responsibility of the district office and the site in implementing the IEP. • A description of when an interpreter should be at an IEP meeting, who is responsible for ensuring that the interpreter is present, and the duties of the interpreter. • The documents and/or IEPs that should be translated to the language of the parents, the process of accomplishing this, and the person responsible for the translation and forwarding the documents to the parents. • The time line for producing special education records when they are requested by parents or parent attorneys, which records should be copied, and who is responsible for ensuring that all required records are copied and sent on time. • The process for hiring a new aide for a school site either as an additional classroom aide or as a specific aide for a student based on the IEP. The process would include the appropriate forms and time lines for approval from initiation through hiring. • The procedure for determining whether an aide should be moved with a student from one site to another. • The procedure for determining whether an aide is no longer needed for a student. • The procedure to determine where an aide will be placed when the student to which he or she is assigned moves from the district or no longer requires an aide. • A formula for assigning aides to mild/moderate programs, moderate/severe programs, and specialized programs with information regarding exceptions to this formula. • A description of how to schedule “staffings” or “file reviews” and who should attend these meetings. • A description of how to schedule IEP meetings when district special education staff members should be in attendance and how to proceed if the staff members are unable to attend. • The components that must be included in an assessment report to ensure that the report is defensible in a due process hearing and that it is available to the parents at the IEP meeting. • The process for completing the required forms that have been identified as problematic including the prior written notice, the invitation to the IEP meeting, and the assessment plan. • The steps for completing the IEP sections that have been identified as problematic including transition, assessment, general education and parental input. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 26 POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Recommendations The district should: 1. Review and revise the SELPA local plan either when changes are required by the CDE or within one year if changes are not required. 2. Review and revise board policies and administrative regulations as indicated to ensure that each reflects the current Education Code requirements. 3. Revise AR 4112.23 referring to resource specialists to reflect the change in district practice of identifying special education teachers as specialized academic instruction teachers. In addition, the district should revise the case- load maximum of 28 students to include appropriate case load maximums for the current district model of instruction. 4. Postpone release of the draft procedure manual. 5. Establish a committee made up of representative Special Education Department staff, site administrators, site special education staffs, related services and other district departments to review the draft procedure manual and make changes as needed. This committee should meet as soon as possible and have a very short time line to revise the document. 6. Develop a training module and schedule to distribute the revised procedure manual to all site administrators and special educators to promote consistency in providing special education throughout the district. 7. Post the procedure manual online so that it can be accessed by all staff. 8. Establish a process to write the additional sections or portions of sections of the procedure manual indicated in this report. 9. Establish a committee to review these additions to the procedure manual. 10. Develop a training module and schedule to distribute these additions. 11. Incorporate the additions into the online manual. 12. Develop a process for reviewing and revising the procedure manual at least annually and when any changes are required because of state and federal regulations or due to due process resolutions or corrective actions. 13. Remove from the manual the sections on SST and 504. The district should assign the appropriate department to review, revise and distribute those sections as separate documents. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 27 ROLE OF PROGRAM SPECIALISTS Role of Program Specialists The district’s program specialists are assigned to provide program support for the elementary or secondary levels and do not function as administrators. Their focus should be on programs and services for students instead of the administrative functions to appropriately align this position to Education Code requirements. Program specialists frequently become involved in staffing issues regarding instructional aides at school sites. The district should ensure that program specialists focus on programs and services to individual students. Staffing decisions should be the responsi- bility of site administrators and the special education administrator. An informal time study of program specialists indicates that their responsibilities are aligned with Education Code as follows: • Twenty percent of their time is devoted to observing, consulting and assisting resource specialists, designated instruction service providers, and special day class teachers. • Thirty percent is spent attending problematic IEP meetings • Twenty percent is designated for providing consultation, program coordination and program development in one specialized area of expertise. • Thirty percent is devoted to other duties such as planning programs, coordinating curriculum and evaluating program effectiveness, staff development and staff training. Recommendations The district should: 1. Ensure program specialist’s focus on programs and services to individual students. 2. Ensure that staffing decisions are the responsibility of site and special educa- tion administrators. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 28 ROLE OF PROGRAM SPECIALISTS Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 29 CASE MANAGEMENT TIME LINES AND POLICIES/PROCEDURES Case Management Time Lines and Policies/Procedures Each district student that has an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) or Individual Service Plan (ISP), or who is referred for assessment for special education services is required to have a case manager that has primary responsibility for the student’s educational and/or therapeutic program. If a student is in specialized academic instruction (SAI) all day (special day class) or less than 50% of the day (resource specialist program) and also receives speech and language services, adapted physical education, counseling or any other instructional services support, the SAI teacher is considered the case manager and holds primary responsibility. For designated instruc- tional services (DIS) students only, the instructional services provider is the case manager. FCMAT found that some district case managers do not meet time lines or follow policies and procedures, resulting in noncompliance issues. This became evident through staff interviews and a review of the district’s recent SESR and corrective actions from CDE. Case manager evaluations are not used to address noncompliance issues, and the evaluation form used to evaluate these employees is geared toward general education teachers. The Special Education Department does not provide this information to the site principals, who also have not received training in evaluating special education case managers and teachers. The district has no policy and procedure thoroughly outlining a case manager’s role and respon- sibilities, and case managers have not received training in these areas. Some case managers also do not track and monitor services. Although there are some obstacles to releasing case managers for training, this is necessary to ensure IEP compliance. Recommendations The district should: 1. Ensure the evaluations of special education teachers include areas of noncom- pliance. To accomplish this, principals will need input from the Special Education Department. 2. Ensure that the case manager evaluation form is amended to include special education compliance components. 3. Provide case managers with training on their role, responsibilities and duties. 4. Ensure that the principals receive guidance in evaluating special education case managers and teachers. 5. Ensure that the policy and procedural manual under development thoroughly defines the role and responsibilities of a case manager, including tracking and monitoring of services (A sample is attached Appendix C to this report). FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 30 CASE MANAGEMENT TIME LINES AND POLICIES/PROCEDURES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 31 EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR Extended School Year Extended School Year (ESY) is a program provided to students with IEPs during extended periods of time when school is not in session such as summer break, school holidays (depending on the length), and when school is off-track. ESY differs from general education summer school because its intent is to address regression and recoupment of students with special needs. The district has no regression and recoupment standards established in relation to ESY. Regression and recoupment refer to the likelihood of a child losing critical skills or failing to recover critical skills within a reasonable time of returning to school after a break. ESY is available to students with IEPs if they exhibit a need for these services; however, the need should be evalu- ated on an individual basis and from year to year. ESY services are costly and should be provided only when IEP teams have determined that they are necessary and appropriate. The district provides ESY to many students without considering regression or recoupment factors and on the assumption that every child with an IEP needs the service. The SELPA has no policy or procedure to help IEP teams determine the appropriateness of ESY services for individual students. Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop a policy and procedures for determining the need for ESY services for indi- vidual students (samples are attached as Appendix D to this report). 2. Develop a regression and recoupment matrix for determining the need for ESY for individual students. 3. Develop a policy and procedures that include the following factors: nature and sever- ity of disability; current IEP goals and objectives; emerging skills and breakthrough opportunities; interfering behaviors; severe regression during the extended break; rare and unusual circumstances. 4. Provide the special education staff and school site administrators with mandatory ex- tensive training on regression and recoupment. 5. Clearly define the roles of the special education directors, special education staff, and school site staff regarding regression and recoupment. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 32 EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 33 TRANSPORTATION Transportation The district has no policy or procedure for determining the appropriateness of specialized transportation. Specialized transportation is a related service that is provided to students based on need and is not appropriate for all students with IEPs. Transportation is required if a student needs it to benefit from specialized academic instruction. The need for specialized transportation should be determined based on the unique needs of each individual student. The district has no policy or procedure to help IEP teams determine the appropriateness of specialized transportation, and IEP teams have no structure to help them make decisions in this area. As a result, “curb to curb” transportation is automatically included in the IEPs of all students. The term “curb to curb” transportation is used in IEPs and included in the draft language of the policy and procedural manual, but teachers are unclear about the definition. It is not necessary to include the term in the manual and “curb to curb” transportation is not neces- sary for all students. Although there have been some improvements, the Transportation Department is not consis- tently receiving student transportation lists for regular year and ESY in a timely manner and is therefore not ready to transport students on day one. It is critical that the district continue to improve the timeliness of transportation information. Recommendations The district should: 1. Review the transportation guidelines for IEP teams developed by the California Department of Education. (These can be found on the California Department of Education website at http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/se/lr/trnsprtg- dlns.asp) 2. Develop a transportation policy, procedure, and guidelines for IEP teams to evaluate students’ specialized transportation needs for ESY and during the regular school year. 3. Remove the term “curb to curb” from the draft of the policy and procedural manual before finalizing the document. 4. Provide the special education staff and school site administrators with training on policy and procedure for specialized transportation. 5. Ensure that the Transportation Department receives lists for transportation timely. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 34 TRANSPORTATION Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 35 1-TO-1 INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS 1-to-1 Instructional Assistants Throughout California the number of districts utilizing instructional assistants, 1-to-1 and special circumstance instructional assistants has increased dramatically over the past few years. This has affected special education budgets and contributions from the unrestricted general fund, especially in situations where the services are not warranted or monitored, and creates a sense of dependence. One strategy is to determine whether these services are appropriate and implement a policy, procedures, and guidelines strictly monitoring them so that they are not unnecessarily provided. According to data provided to FCMAT, the district employs approximately 259 instructional assistants to serve mild to moderate and moderate to severe programs students, and 138 are assigned as 1-to-1 instructional assistants. The 1-to-1 assistants represent a relatively high propor- tion, 53%, of the instructional assistant assignments in district special education programs. The district would increase efficiency by determining which students have a need that warrants the service of a 1-to-1 instructional assistant. The goal should be to foster student independence. The district has no policy or procedures for assigning, supporting, transitioning or dismissing instructional assistants, including 1-to-1 instructional assistant services. This increases the potential for adversarial IEPs because when a 1-to-1 instructional assistant is requested or recom- mended, no structure guides the determination of whether this support is appropriate. When it is determined that this type of assistant should be provided, the IEP team does not include a fading or exit plan for these services. Teachers are unclear about when they can decline a request for a 1-to-1 instructional assistant. In addition, the Special Education Department does not reevaluate to determine whether this type of assistant is still needed for the student to benefit from educa- tion. Because of a lack of thorough tracking, students have sometimes moved after being assigned a 1-to-1 instructional assistant, but the assistant remained at the site conducting other duties such as assisting in the office. The establishment of policies and procedures provides an opportunity to clearly define the role of the special education director, special education staff, and school site administrators. Guidelines can assist the district staff when challenged by parents and advocates who request these services and help the focus remain on students at IEP meetings. Extensive training and strategies must follow the development and implementation guidelines. Administrators, general and special education staff should attend mandatory training on the usage of the guidelines. Once policy and procedures are in place, a review of all instructional assistant placements should be conducted, with the goal of utilizing these resources more effectively. Policy and procedure should include the following components: 1. Determination of the assignment of instructional assistants to classrooms. 2. Determination of the need for 1-to-1 instructional assistant assignments in a step-by-step structured process. 3. Alternatives to 1-to-1 instructional assistants. 4. Determination of the utilization of existing resources. 5. Evaluation of the continuing need for 1-to-1 instructional aides. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 36 1-TO-1 INSTRUCTIONAL ASSISTANTS 6. Determination of when it is appropriate to add hours to an existing instruc- tional assistant’s schedule. Many districts use the term special circumstance instructional assistants (SCIA) instead of 1-to-1 instructional assistant to indicate that an assignment is temporary and should be transitioned or “faded” after a predetermined period of time. Fading is an important aspect of these services and is crucial to encouraging independence. The district has developed a draft policy to address 1-to-1 instructional assistants that uses the term special circumstance instructional assistant. Recommendations The district should: 1. Develop policy and procedure for the use of special circumstance instruc- tional assistants (SCIA) instead of 1-to-1 instructional assistants; along with general instructional assistant guidelines (additional information is attached as Appendix E to this report). 2. Develop a policy and procedures to help assign, support, transition or “fade,” and terminate 1-to-1 instructional assistant services. 3. Develop a policy and procedures to include the establishment of monitoring and transition or “fading plans” at IEP meetings. 4. Provide the special education staff and school site administrators with manda- tory training on the policy and procedure for determining the need for 1-to-1 instructional assistants. 5. Closely monitor the assignment of 1-to-1 instructional assistants and the placement of the student to which they are assigned. 6. Evaluate the continuing need for 1-to-1 instructional assistants. Whenever possible, the district should consider the use of 3.5 hour 1-to-1 instructional assistants to reduce costs. The district should identify specific staff members to be responsible for analyzing 1-to-1 aide usage and student needs and clearly define roles of the special education directors, special education staff, and school site staff. 7. Ensure that the placement of 1-to-1 instructional assistants is appropriate for the student and staff. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 37 APPENDICES Appendices A. Facilitated IEPs B. Alternative Dispute Resolution C. Roles and Responsibilities of a Case Manager D. Sample Policies and Procedures for ESY Services E. Sample Policies and Procedures for Special Circumstances Instructional Aides F. Study Agreement FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 38 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 39 APPENDICES Appendix A - Facilitated IEPs • Home Facilitated IEP & Conflict Resolution Resources Testimonials About Us Contact Us Key2Ed is Your Key to Professional Development Key2Ed is an educational consulting company, specializing in personalized consulting services to state and local education agencies, including and providing training in special education meeting facilitation and conflict resolution, as well as educational leadership. Key2Ed was founded by Joyce and Doug Little who designed and developed meeting facilitation for IEP meetings through JDL Associates, their previous company. Key2Ed also provides consulting for districts for finance, instructional leadership, and special education. Testimonials "This has been the best workshop I have attended in 30 years of “doing special ed” in terms of over all impact on a wide-spread perspective. When implemented, this process will have more positive impact..." - Ann Paetz, MSD Lawrence Township Indiana Facilitated IEP & Conflict Resolution The Key2Ed founders also founded JDL Associates, and developed individualized education program (IEP)... Contact Key2Ed . FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 40 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 41 APPENDICES FolsoM cordova UniFied school district noitacudE laicepS atsoC artnoC EVAH UOY OD aerA nalP lacoL 072 etiuS ,evirD llewnatS 0252 ETUPSID A 02549 AC ,drocnoC GNIHTON DNA 01x 9490-728 )529( :enohP 4211-528 )529( :XAF ?KROW OT SMEES gro.aplescc.www :etisbeW .D.dE ,nyuDnaV aruaL rotceriD APLES NOITAMROFNI ROF :LLAC ocinemoD eniaraL rotanidrooC ekatnI RDA tcirtsiD loohcS hgiH noinU senalacA tcirtsiD loohcS deifinU hcoitnA tcirtsiD loohcS noinU doowtnerB 42 .txe 9490-728 )529( tcirtsiD loohcS noinU noryB tcirtsiD loohcS noynaC noitacudE fo eciffO ytnuoC LAICEPS ROF tcirtsiD loohcS deifinU ttewS nhoJ tcirtsiD loohcS nesthginK SEUSSI NOITACUDE tcirtsiD loohcS etteyafaL tcirtsiD loohcS hgiH noinU ytrebiL tcirtsiD loohcS deifinU zenitraM A SI EREHT tcirtsiD loohcS agaroM atsoC artnoC tcirtsiD loohcS noinU yelkaO .....NOITULOS noitacudE laicepS tcirtsiD loohcS noinU adnirO tcirtsiD loohcS deifinU grubsttiP aerA nalP lacoL tcirtsiD loohcS keerC tunlaW Appendix B - Alternative Dispute Resolution 42 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM atsoC artnoC A W D Y S HTI ETUPSI RUO ELTTE noitacudE laicepS . P R C aerA nalP lacoL LENA NOITULOSE TCILFNO lenaP snoituloS NOITCAFSITAS EROM (cid:45) ?LENAP SNOITULOS A SI TAHW -gis erutangis yratnulov ruoY .tnemeerga nettirw nwo struoC .noitca lagel naht gniyfsitas erom si ssecorp ehT na fI .noituloser eht dlohpu ot tnemtimmoc ruoy seifin seitrap eht swolla lenaP snoituloS ehT .snoisiced etatcid tseuqer yam ytrap rehtie ,dehcaer eb tonnac tnemeerga sgnirb taht dohtem gnivlos melborp a sesu lenap ehT A .tnemeerga nwo rieht epahs dna lortnoc ot tcilfnoc ni -moc ton era sthgir tneraP .ecnatsissa level etats ro lacol -uen a yb dediug ,rehtegot seitrap ro elpoep gnitupsid dna stnerap neewteb pihsnoitaler gnikrow evitaroballoc .desimorp .tnemeerga gniyfsitas yllautum a hcaer ot ,lenap lart .devorpmi netfo dna deniatniam si lennosrep tcirtsid -acudE lacoL ruoy yb dedivorp si lenaP snoituloS ehT -udE laicepS atsoC artnoC eht fo rebmem ycnegA noit SNEPPAH TAHW .aerA nalP lacoL noitac TSOC SSEL (cid:45) lenap eno fo esnepxe ehT .tsoc on ta dedivorp era slenaP ?LLAC I NEHW ruoy ot snetsil rotanidrooC ehT .1 slenaP noituloS .emit yenrotta fo ruoh eno naht ssel si yfitnedi ylraelc uoy spleh dna nrecnoc na edivorp dna swal eht tuoba noitamrofnI .stcilfnoc dna smelborp lamrofni RETSAF (cid:45) edam eb yam larrefeR .dedivorp eb yam snoitaluger erusserp-on -roF .skeew eerht ot owt nihtiw dleh yllausu era slenaP yltcerid dna yletairporppa erom yam ohw srehto ot gnilttes rof gnittes esU .enilemit yad-54 a sah ssecorP euD level etatS lam .seussi ruoy htiw krow .secnereffid enilemit eht yaled ton seod hcaorppa lenaP snoituloS a fo .ssecorP euD rof eht stcatnoc rotanidrooc eht ,noissimrep ruoy htiW .2 snoituloS a ni noitapicitrap segaruocne dna ytrap rehto ?UOY PLEH LLIW OHW TNEINEVNOC (cid:45) .ssecorp lenaP .seitrap htob ot elbaeerga etis a ta dleh era slenaP rotanidrooC eht ,seitrap htob yb tnemeerga htiW .3 krow sreetnulov lenaP noituloS deifitrec dna deniarT dna emit a eludehcs dna srebmem lenap ngissa lliw a fo pu edam si lenap ehT .noituloser dnif ot uoy htiw LAITNEDIFNOC (cid:45) .seitrap htob ot elbatpecca noitacol a dna ,rotartsinimda na ,ffats troppus/rehcaet a ,tnerap -eerga yb dnuob si ssecorp lenaP eht ni devlovni enoyrevE -sid loohcs ruoy edistuo morf lla ,rebmem ytinummoc .ytilaitnedifnoc niatniam ot wal dna tnem ,gnorw ro thgir si ohw ediced ton lliw lenap ehT .4 .tcirt -sitas yllautum a gnihcaer ni seitrap eht tsissa lliw tub .tnemeerga yrotcaf EHT SEOD WOH TNEMEERGA NI STLUSER (cid:45) SSECORP LENAP SNOITULOS yllagel eb nac stnemeerga dengis ,eerga seitrap htob fI tup era scificeps eht ,dehcaer si tnemeerga nehW .5 ?UOY ROF KROW evah slenap ytinummoc fo %58 .seitrap eht no gnidnib .seitrap lla yb dengis dna gnitirw otni evah stnemeerga eseht fo %59 .stnemeerga ni detluser .erom ro raey a rof dleh dna 'yas' ruoy evah ot teg uoy ,noisses deludehcs a tA -sa ot elbaliava eb ot seunitnoc rotanidrooc ehT .6 snoituloS ehT .weiv fo tniop s'ytrap rehto eht ot netsil .detseuqer sa tsis driht lartuen a sa stca tub ,sedis ekat ton seod lenaP rehto eht dna uoY .noitulos a ot yaw eht esae ot ytrap 42 .txe 9490-728 )529( LLAC ruoy etaerc ot ssecorp nevorp a hguorht krow ytrap 43 APPENDICES Appendix C - Roles and Responsibilities of a Case Manager SPECIAL EDUCATION CASE MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES-SAMPLE Each special education student will have only one IEP folder. It will be the responsibility of the case manager to maintain that folder. This will require the cooperation of all persons involved (providers) with the student. Most of the time the case manager will be the person providing the majority of services to the student and who has the most contact with the student. Typical Case Manager Duties:  Schedule and facilitate all IEP meetings, including annual, triennial, transition, other, etc…  Communicate with non-school personnel providers such as regional center, mental health, etc…  Communicate regularly with site administrator; particularly regarding more involved students.  Facilitate the attendance and participation of all IEP meeting attendees including required team members and additional participants.  Prepare all necessary IEP documents for IEP meetings including the following: Appropriate IEP pages o Parents Rights and Procedural Safeguards o Release of Information if appropriate o  Facilitate inputting of goals and Present Levels into SEIS from all providers.  Facilitate inputting of direct and related services into SEIS from all providers.  Input all additions/changes to IEP document after IEP meeting takes place, including meeting notes.  Affirm/Attest IEPs  Correct CASEMIS errors in SEIS  Properly maintain all information in the IEP folder. Each folder should contain evaluation information and IEPs and as appropriate: Reports provided by outside evaluators o Release of Information o  Be responsible for the original copy of the IEP (make copies as needed).  Supply the general education teachers with copies of the special education student’s goals & objectives, accommodations/modifications.  Complete progress reports and provide to parents at appropriate reporting periods.  Coordinate the reporting of progress by other special education providers (psych, speech, OT, etc…)  Report new students to central office and request IEP record via SEIS.  Report discipline to central office by sending or faxing appropriate paperwork associated with disciplinary action.  Request student changes via SEIS when appropriate (student is exited from sped, student moves to new school, etc…)  Send student file to central office when student moves or is exited from special education. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 44 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 45 APPENDICES Appendix D - Sample Policies & Procedures for ESY Services §3043 Extended School Year Extended school year services shall be provided for each individual with exceptional needs who has unique needs and requires special education and related services in excess of the regular academic year. Such individuals shall have handicaps which are likely to continue indefinitely or for a prolonged period, and interruption of the pupil’s educational programming may cause regression, when coupled with limited recoupment capacity, rendering it impossible or unlikely that the pupil will attain the level of self-sufficiency and independence that would otherwise be expected in view of his or her handicapping condition. The lack of clear evidence of such factors may not be used to deny an individual an extended school year program if the individualized education program team determines the need for such a program and includes extended school year in the individualized education program pursuant to subsection (f). (a) Extended year special education and related services shall be provided by a school district, special education local plan area, or county office offering programs during the regular academic year. (b) Individuals with exceptional needs who may require an extended school year are those who: (1) Are placed in special classes or centers; or (2) Are individuals with exceptional needs whose individualized education programs specify an extended year program as determined by the Individualized Education Program Team. (c) The term “extended year” as used in this section means the period of time between the close of one academic year and the beginning of the succeeding academic year. The term “academic year” as used in this section means that portion of the school year during which the regular day school is maintained, which period must include less than the number of days required to entitle the district, special education services region, or county office to apportionments of state funds. (d) An extended year program shall be provided for a minimum of 20 instructional days, including holidays. For reimbursement purposes: (1) A maximum of 55 instructional days excluding holidays shall be allowed for individuals in special classes or centers for the severely handicapped; and (2) A maximum of 30 instructional days excluding holidays shall be allowed for all other eligible pupils needing extended year. (e) A local governing board may increase the number of instructional days the extended year period, but shall not claim revenue for average daily attendance generated beyond the maximum instructional days allowed in subsection (d)(1) and (2). (f) An extended year program when needed, as determined by the Individualized Education Program team, shall be included in the pupil’s individualized education program. FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 46 APPENDICES (g) In order to qualify for average daily attendance revenue for extended year pupils, all of the following conditions must be met: (1) Extended year special education shall be the same length of time as the school day for pupils of the same age level attending summer school in the district in which the extended year program is provided, but not less than the minimum school day for that age unless otherwise specified in the individualized education program to meet a pupil'’ needs. (2) The special education and related services offered during the extended year period are comparable in standards, scope and quality to the special education program offered during the regular academic year. (h) If during the regular academic year an individual’s Individualized Education Program specifies integration in the regular classroom, a public education agency is not required to meet that component of the individualized program if no regular summer school programs are being offered by that agency. (i) This section shall not apply to schools which are operating a continuous school program pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 37600) of Part 22, Division 3, Title 2, of the Education Code. [Authority cited: Section 56100(a) and (j), Education Code. Reference: Sections 37600, 41976.5 and 56345, Education Code; 34 C.F.R. 300.346] REFERENCES: Extended School year Services. www.matrix.org EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR SERVICES: Current Trends and Legal Standards. Jack B. Clarke, Jr. Esq., a partner of Best, Best and Krieger LLP, Riverside, California, 2004. Learning Support/Equity and Advocacy, “Information UPDATE, No. 96.01 – Extended School Year.” www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/een/bu196-01 Pinkerton, Diana, Extended School Year. ERIC Digest #E471, 1990, (ED 371503). www.ericfacility.net/databases/ERIC_Digests Tilley, B.K., Cox, L.S., & Staybrook, N. (1986). An Extended School Year Validation Study. Report No. 86-2). Seattle: Seattle Public Schools. *Based on/adapted from “Extended School Year (ESY)”. Pinkerton, Dianna, ERIC Digest #471. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 47 APPENDICES Appendix E - Sample Policies and Procedures for Special Circumstances Instructional Aides Observational Evaluation for SCI Assistance Student: _______________________________________ School: ___________________________________ Teacher: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________________________ Observer’s Name/Title: ____________________________________Setting: _________________________ Section I: Please complete the following review of the visual and physical structure of the classroom, curriculum design, data collection and planning. A. Posted classroom schedule _____ Yes _____ No If yes, complete section below: 1. The following elements are included in the classroom schedule: Times Locations Students Activities Staff names 2. The schedule is Daily Weekly Other _____________________________________ B. Individual student schedule _____ Yes _____ No If yes, complete section below: 1. Student uses the following format for individualized schedule: Object Icon Photograph Word Picture 2. Room is arranged with structure to correlate with tasks on schedule: Area for one-to-one work Area for independent work Area for group work Area for leisure Not applicable 3. Student ability to follow the schedule: Independent With direct verbal prompt Non-verbal with gestural prompt With physical prompt With indirect verbal prompt Consistent Inconsistent 4. Student use of the schedule: Student carries schedule Student uses transition cards Student goes to schedule board Teacher carries and shows the schedule Consistent Inconsistent *Attach sample classroom schedule and individual student schedule FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 48 APPENDICES C. Curriculum and instructional planning 1. Check the curricular domains included in the student’s program: Communication Social/behavioral Self care Pre-vocational/vocational Academics Recreation/leisure Motor skills/mobility Domestic Other: _____________________________ 2. Describe curricular accommodations and/or modifications currently being used: 3. List equipment or devices used /available that may relate to the need for assistance (may be low incidence equipment or assistive technology device): 4. Are materials and activities age appropriate? _____ Yes _____ No 5. Are materials and activities instructionally appropriate? _____ Yes _____ No D. Current data systems and collection of data Has data been collected on student performance? _____ Yes _____No If yes, complete section below: 1. Current data on each objective includes: Date Level of independence (prompting needed) Task 2. Data is collected: Daily Biweekly Weekly Monthly 3. Data is summarized in the following manner: Graphed Other________________________ Written narrative *Attach sample Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 49 APPENDICES E. Behavior and safety 1. Describe the behavior management system in the classroom, including positive reinforcers and consequences. Is the system appropriate for the student or does it need modification? 2. Are specific positive behavior supports utilized for the student? _____ Yes _____ No Describe: 3. Is there appropriate safety equipment in place? _____ Yes _____ No 4. Are appropriate safety and medical procedures being used? _____ Yes _____ No 5. Does it appear appropriate training has been provided? _____ Yes _____ No Comments: 6. Describe the student’s interactions with peers: 7. Describe the student’s interaction with non-classroom staff in a less structured environment: 8. What activities does the student choose during breaks? 9. What problems are evident? FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 50 APPENDICES F. Planning team meetings 1. Are team meetings held? (formal or informal meetings to problem solve) _____ Yes _____ No If yes, complete section below: Daily Biweekly Weekly Monthly Need to be scheduled 2. Meetings include the following participants: G. Current utilization of assistance How is existing assistance utilized? Behavior management Medical assistance Curriculum adaptation and preparation Supervision Instruction - individual Instruction - group Other_________________________________ H. Team Summary/Action Plan 1. Can current conditions be modified to meet the student’s goals and objectives and/or personal care needs? If so, how? 2. What other types of assistance are needed? Why? 3. Are there any other issues that need to be addressed? 4. Recommendations: SCIA rev. 2/12/09 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 51 APPENDICES Request for Special Circumstance Instructional Aide Student-Related/Transportation Support Please complete all required information and return to the Special Education Department, Director of Special Education. Notification of approval will be provided to the Program Manager, Special Education Accountant, Finance Department, and Human Resources Department. Program ______________________________ Teacher_______________________________ Program Specialist____________________________________ Date____________________ Student ______________________________________________ DOB__________________ District of Residence______________________________ Classroom___________________ Requested Start Date _________________ Anticipated Ending date___________________ Transportation Provider (check one): _____ District of Residence _____ First Student Rationale for ride-along support: (Attach additional information/documentation) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- Department Approval: _______________________________________________ ______________________ Program Specialist Date ________________________________________________________ __________________________ Special Education Director Date Comments: SCIA Assignment Codes: 0100-56400-0-5750-3142-220004-XXXX-XXX 0100-65000-0-5750-1110-210004-XXXX-XXX Enter budget code: FUND RESOURCE YEAR GOAL FUNCTION OBJECT DEPT. MANAGER SCIA: rev. 9/1/09 FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 52 APPENDICES Techniques to Promote Independence and Fading of Support 1. Watch before assisting. Can the student ask for help from teacher or peer? 2. Can the student problem solve independently? 3. Give the student extra time to process and respond before assisting. 4. Provide consistent classroom schedule (posted, visual, at desk if needed, reinforcement periods included). Teach the student how to use it. 5. Start with the least intrusive prompts to get the student to respond: A. Gestural, hand or facial signals B. Timer C. Verbal D. Light physical E. Hand over hand 6. Prompt, then back away to allow independent time. 7. Use strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes to motivate student participation and interest. 8. Model; guide (watch and assist); check (leave and check back). 9. Teach independence skills (raising hand, asking for help, modeling other students). 10.Praise for independent attempts. 11.Direct the student to answer to the teacher. 12.Prompt the student to listen to the teacher’s instructions. Repeat only when necessary. 13.Encourage age appropriate work habits. See what other students are doing. 14.Be aware of proximity. Sit with the student only when necessary. 15.Encourage peer assistance and partnering. Teach peers how to help, not enable. 16.Utilize self-monitoring checklists for student. 17.Color code materials to assist with organization. 18.Use transition objects to help the student anticipate/complete transition (i.e., head phones for listening center). 19.Break big tasks into steps. 20.Use backward chaining (i.e., leave the last portion of a cutting task for the student, then gradually lengthen the task). 21.Assist in encouraging a means for independent communication (i.e., PECS). 22.Provide positive feedback (be specific to the situation). 23.Ask facilitative questions (“What comes next?” “What are other students doing?” “What does the schedule say?” “What did the teacher say?”). 24.Give choices. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 53 APPENDICES Guidelines for Requesting Special Circumstance Instructional Assistance Rationale: Special circumstance instructional assistance (SCIA) may be indicated in situations where additional staff support is needed in the classroom or en route to and from school due to 1) pervasive and aggressive student behaviors directed towards self or others, or 2) intensive student needs. Factors for review and consideration: The goal for any special needs student is to encourage, promote, and maximize independence. If not carefully monitored, special circumstance instructional assistance can easily and unintentionally foster dependence. A student’s total educational program must be carefully evaluated to determine where support is indicated. Natural support and existing staff support should be used whenever possible to promote the least restrictive environment. Special factors for students residing in the ________________________: 1. All requests for SCIA shall be submitted to the Director of Special Education. SCIA should not be indicated in individual student IEP’s as a service. However, in certain circumstances the need for additional support may need to be indicated in a student’s IEP. In those instances, the need shall be indicated in the present levels or meeting notes as “100% supervision.” 2. For services requiring additional personnel support as a result of student- related behavioral issues, a positive behavioral support plan or Behavior Intervention Plan should be developed and should include provisions describing how and when the support will be utilized to implement the plan and when the plan will be reviewed and modified, including the fading of SCI Assistance. 3. Observational assessments and team staffing will be conducted on a quarterly basis to evaluate the continued need for SCIA. Budget coding for additional paraeducator support (classroom and/or transportation): 0100-56400-0-5750-3142-220004-XXXX-XXX 0100-65000-0-5750-1110-210004-XXXX-XXX The appropriate code must be entered on all status forms and payroll timesheets. The Special Education Department Accountant shall receive a copy of all SCIA requests and shall be notified routinely of all excess costs. Process for requesting SCI Assistance: 1. Complete the Request for Special Circumstance Instructional Assistance (for Classroom Support and/or Transportation Support). FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 54 APPENDICES 2. Complete the Observational Evaluation for SCI Assistance (For Individual Student Support only). 3. Complete the Student Needs for Additional Support Rubric (For Classroom Support , Individual Student Support and Transportation Support). 4. Complete the Class Weighting Worksheet (For Classroom Support only). 5. Attach supporting documentation if pertinent (IEP, Behavior Plan, etc.). 6. Submit all paperwork to the Director of Special Education. 7. Upon approval, complete the Request for Long-term Substitute for classroom support and/or an employee status form for transportation support (regular employee ride along). 8. All forms will be disseminated to the Special Education Accountant, Human Resources Department, Program Specialist and Special Education Director. 9. The Special Education Director will assist the site during each quarter to review the need for on-going SCIA classroom and/or transportation support. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 55 APPENDICES FolsoM cordova UniFied school district cirbuR troppuS lanoitiddA rof sdeeN tnedutS :deweiveR etaD ____________________________ :ytilibasiD ________ :BOD _____________________________ :emaN tnedutS _____________ :margorP tnerruC __________________________________ :rehcaeT _______________________________________________________________ .etairporppa si taht yrogetac cirbur hcae ni tneduts eht sebircsed tseb taht rebmun eht tceleS gnitaR/noitcurtsnI gnitaR/roivaheB gnitaR/eraC lanosreP/htlaeH aertsniaM/noisulcnI gnitaR/gnim nihtiw mulucirruc eroc emos ni etapicitraP .noitcurtsni ssalc elohw ni ylluf setapicitraP tneuqerf tuohtiw snoitcerid tluda swolloF htlaeh dezilaiceps oN .htlaeh doog lareneG wef seriuqer dna ssalc noitacude lareneg noitcurtsni lacipyt gnirud ksat no syatS egnahc seldnaH .noisivrepus esolc ro stpmorp rof emit ro ,nekat snoitacidem ,erudecorp erac .moorssalc dnif naC .snoitacifidom on ot wef htiw noitcerid swolloF .ytivitca sreep htiw gnola steg yllausU .noitcerider dna ega" lla sniatniam yltnednepednI .erac htlaeh 0 .sreep htiw llew sezilaicos yllausU .stpmorp lanoitidda .sdneirf tuo skeeS .stluda dna .erac lanosrep "etairporppa dna noitacifidom htiw setapicitraP tub level lanoitcurtsni ta spuorg ni setapicitraP yllanoisacco tub noitcerid tluda swolloF seigrellA .snrecnoc htlaeh lanoisacco ro dliM lanoisacco sdeeN .noitadommocca ro seuc ,stpmorp lanoitidda eriuqer yam dna tnemegaruocne lanoitidda seriuqer oN .snoitidnoc htlaeh cinorhc rehto ro seriuqeR .eludehcs dna moor fo srednimer no yats ot srednimer seriuqeR .tnemecrofnier ro sreep htiw ytluciffid lanoisaccO .stpmorp snoitacideM .erudecorp erac htlaeh dezilaiceps 1 & krow hsinif ot troppus lanoitidda emos degagne niamer ot dna snoitcerid wollof ,ksat tub sdneirf tuo kees syawla ton seoD .stluda .emit setunim 01 naht ssel sekat noitartsinimda gnieuc laicos emos sdeeN .elbisnopser eb .gninrael ni .detivni fi syalp "etairporppa ega" etelpmoc ot srednimer sdeeN .yletairporppa sreep htiw tcaretni ot .seitivitca erac lanosrep dna noisivrepus lausiv htiw setapicitraP ssalc elohw ni etapicitrap syawla tonnaC dna snoitcerid gniwollof smelborp saH dezilaiceps cireneg ,seussi htlaeh cinorhC seriuqeR .stpmorp labrev lanoisacco dna spuorg rellams seriuqeR .noitcurtsni deganam eb naC .yletairporppa gnivaheb .noitacidem sekaT .erudecorp erac htlaeh sdeeN .ssalc ot teg ot gniwodahs lausiv ro seuc ,stpmorp labrev tneuqerf roivaheb moorssalc a htiw yletauqeda yliad nim 51-01 rof noitnevretni erac htlaeH 2 ot snoitadommocca & snoitacifidom emit eht fo %05 tuoba ksat nO .tnemecrofnier ecneirepxe ot elbanu tub ,nalp tnemeganam seriuqeR .)noitacidem ,ragus doolb ,teid( ralugeR .seitivitca ssalc morf tifeneb stpmorp labrev erom seriuqeR .troppus htiw nalp troppus roivaheb tuohtiw sseccus hcum detimil ro stpmorp lanoitidda dna srednimer .noitatilicaf tluda eriuqer yam noitazilaicos .snoitcerid wollof ot .noitatnemelpmi gnisu ,sdnah gnihsaw rof ecnatsissa no sdnah ,snottub ,seohs ,htuom gnipiw ,moorhtab .stnedicca gniteliot lanoisaccO .cte ,sreppiz ffats lanoitidda eriuqer yam noitapicitraP .puorg egral a ni etapicitrap ot tluciffiD .yliad tsomla smelborp roivaheb suoireS dna erudecorp erac htlaeh dezilaiceps yreV laroivaheb dna lanoitcurtsni tcerid rof tluda esolc ,oitar ffats tneduts wol seriuqeR .noissergga lacisyhp ot enorp ro/dna tnaifeD lacisyhP .ytilibom detimiL .noitacidem gniog noisivrepus tcerid seriuqeR .troppus lacisyhp gnidulcni stpmorp dna ytimixorp )PIB( nalP noitnevretnI roivaheB a seriuqeR ,rednats( ecnatsissa gniriuqer snoitatimil 3 seriuqer syawlA .ssalc morf & ot seilpmoc yliramirP .ksat no yats ot ecnatsissa .PEI eht no sevitcejbo dna slaog roivaheb dna laicepS .)riahcleehw ro reniart tiag ,reklaw * 56 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM ssalc rof snoitadommocca & snoitacifidom .gnirotinom & snoitcerid 1:1 htiw ylno ot noisivrepus lausiv esolc seriuqeR detaler htlaeH .gnideef ro perp doof laicos etatilicaf ot tluda seriuqeR .krow eriuqer ylekil slliks & seitiliba evitingoC DHDA/DDA rof noitacideM .PIB tnemelpmi tneuqerF .yliad .nim 54-51 snoitnevretni .sreep htiw noitcaretni .elohw a sa ssalc rof lacipyt ton snoitacifidom .sroivaheb rehto ro rof ecnatsissa noitcerid dna stpmorp lacisyhp derutcurtS ,ABA ,lairT etercsiD sdeeN .ylraluger deriuqer perp dooF .erac lanosrep %08 revo gningis seriuqeR .SCEP ,gnihcaeT ,pleh tcerid ,gniniart ,eludehcs teliot seriuqeR .emit fo .gnirepaid esolc ni ffats 1:1 seriuqer syawlA tnatsnoc tuohtiw puorg a ni etapicitrap tonnaC rof laitnetop htiw smelborp roivaheb suoireS erac gniriuqer erudecorp erac htlaeh dezilaicepS ,ytefas ,noitcurtsni tcerid rof ytimixorp dna labrev tnatsnoc seriuqeR .troppus 1:1 ,yawa-snur ,srehto dna fles ot yrujni ,ebut G( eeyolpme deniart yllaiceps yb seriuqeR .gnirotinom roivaheb ro ytilibom wollof dna ksat no yats ot gnitpmorp lacisyhp lanoitcnuF .sisab yliad a no evissergga sekaT ).noitaziretehtac ,ymotoehcart 4 %08 ssalc morf dna ot og ot ecnatsissa 1:1 1:1 cificeps seriuqer ylralugeR .snoitcerid neeb sah lliB sehguH ro roivaheB fo sisylanA gnicarb ro gninoitisop seriuqer ,noitacidem * etatilicaf ot tluda seriuqeR .emit eht fo .PEI eht morf tifeneb ot seigetarts lanoitcurtsni -llew a sah tneduts eht dna detelpmoc detaler htlaeH .yliad semit elpitlum ni niamer dna sreep htiw noitcaretni laicos eriuqer slliks dna seitiliba evitingoC ot detnemelpmi eb tsum hcihw ,PIB depoleved ecnatsissa tceriD .yliad .nim 54 snoitnevretni .semit lla ta ytimixorp esolc noitacifidom dna noitadommocca tnacifingis ffatS .loohcs dnetta ylefas ot tneduts eht wolla nosrep-owt seriuqeR .erac lanosrep tsom htiw .puorg ssalc eht rof lacipyt ton fo tnemeganam eht ni deniart neeb sah setunim erom ro 54 ecnatsissa 1:1 tceriD .tfil .sroivaheb evitluassa .yliad ecnatsmucric laiceps fo noitaredisnoc rehtruf enimreted ot emit fo doirep a revo noitarud dna ycneuqerf gnitacidni noitatnemucod fo ypoc a hcattA* .ssecorp tnemssessa sdeen htiw eunitnoc ,saera erom ro owt ni ,s’4 & s’3 fo sgnitar yltsom fI .ecnatsissa lanoitcurtsni 57 APPENDICES Appendix F - Study Agreement FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 58 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 59 APPENDICES FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 60 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 61 APPENDICES FolsoM cordova UniFied school district 62 APPENDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM