Siskiyou County Office of Education Report

Siskiyou County Office of Education Special Education Review April 19, 2017 Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM April 19, 2017 Kermith Walters, Superintendent Siskiyou County Office of Education 609 South Gold Street Yreka, California 96097 Dear Superintendent Walters: In October 2016, the Siskiyou County Office of Education and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) entered into an agreement for FCMAT to provide a review of the county office’s special education programs and services. Specifically, the agreement states that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Review special education teacher staffing ratios, class and caseload size using the statutory requirements for mandated services and statewide guidelines, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 2. Review the efficiency of para-educator staffing, including 1-to-1 para-educators, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. This will include reviewing the procedures used to identify the need for para-educators, and the process for monitoring para-educator assignments and determining the need for continued support from year to year. 3. Analyze staffing and caseloads of related service providers such as speech therapists, psychologists, occupational and physical therapists, behavior specialists, adaptive physical education teachers, credentialed nurses and others, and make recommen- dations for improvement, if any. 4. Review special education transportation for efficiency and effectiveness, and provide recommendations for potential cost-saving measures, if any. The review will include, but not be limited to, the role of the IEP, routing, scheduling, opera- tions and staffing. This final report contains the study team’s findings and recommendations. . FCMAT appreciates the opportunity to serve the Siskiyou County Office of Education and extends thanks to all the staff for their cooperation and assistance during fieldwork. Sincerely, Joel D. Montero Chief Executive Officer Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents About FCMAT .........................................................................................iii Introduction ............................................................................................1 Background ......................................................................................................1 Study and Report Guidelines .....................................................................1 Study Team.......................................................................................................2 Executive Summary ..............................................................................3 Findings and Recommendations .....................................................5 Special Education Teacher Caseloads and Teacher Assistants ................................................................................5 Preschool .....................................................................................................................5 Resource Specialist Program .................................................................................6 Special Day Classes ...................................................................................................7 Professional Development .....................................................................................9 Extended School Year ..............................................................................................9 Related Service Provider (formerly Designated Instruction Provider) Caseloads .....................................................................................13 Adapted Physical Education ................................................................................13 Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Audiology ......................................................13 Vision ...........................................................................................................................14 Mental Health Services and Psychologists .....................................................14 Nurses .........................................................................................................................15 Occupational and Physical Therapy ..................................................................16 Speech and Language Pathologists .................................................................17 SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Transportation...............................................................................................19 Funding and Finance .............................................................................................19 Routing and Scheduling .......................................................................................21 Driver Training and Safety ...................................................................................23 Vehicle Maintenance and Fleet .........................................................................25 Appendices ............................................................................................27 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, human resources 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 manage- ment assistance services are used not just to help avert fiscal crisis, but to promote sound financial practices, support the training and development of chief business officials and help to create efficient organizational operations. FCMAT’s data management services are used to help local educational agencies (LEAs) meet state reporting responsibilities, improve data quality, and inform instructional program decisions. 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 LEA 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. FCMAT has continued to make adjustments in the types of support provided based on the changing dynamics of K-14 LEAs and the implementation of major educational reforms. 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 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation seidutS fo rebmuN FCMAT also develops and provides numerous publications, software tools, workshops and professional development opportunities to help LEAs operate more effectively and fulfill their fiscal oversight and data management responsibilities. The California School Information Services (CSIS) division of FCMAT assists the California Department of Education with the implementation of the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS). CSIS also hosts and maintains the Ed-Data website (www.ed-data.org) and provides technical expertise to the Ed-Data partnership: the California Department of Education, EdSource and FCMAT. FCMAT was created by Assembly Bill (AB) 1200 in 1992 to assist LEAs to meet and sustain their financial obligations. AB 107 in 1997 charged FCMAT with responsibility for CSIS and its state- wide data management work. AB 1115 in 1999 codified CSIS’ mission. iv ABOUT FCMAT AB 1200 is also a statewide plan for county offices of education and school districts to work together locally to improve fiscal procedures and accountability standards. AB 2756 (2004) provides specific responsibilities to FCMAT with regard to districts that have received emergency state loans. In January 2006, Senate Bill 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 more than 1,000 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 The Siskiyou County Office of Education is located in Yreka, California, which is also the county seat. It provides support services for approximately 5,800 K-12 students in 25 school districts across the 6,347 square miles of Siskiyou County, located in northernmost California adjacent to the Oregon border. In October 2016 the Siskiyou County Office of Education entered into a study agreement for FCMAT to assist the county office by reviewing its special education program and services. The study agreement specifies that FCMAT will perform the following: 1. Review special education teacher staffing ratios, class and caseload size using the statutory requirements for mandated services and statewide guidelines, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 2. Review the efficiency of para-educator staffing, including 1-to-1 para-educa- tors, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. This will include reviewing the procedures used to identify the need for para-educators, and the process for monitoring para-educator assignments and determining the need for continued support from year to year. 3. Analyze staffing and caseloads of related service providers such as speech ther- apists, psychologists, occupational and physical therapists, behavior special- ists, adaptive physical education teachers, credentialed nurses and others, and make recommendations for improvement, if any. 4. Review special education transportation for efficiency and effectiveness, and provide recommendations for potential cost-saving measures, if any. The review will include, but not be limited to, the role of the IEP, routing, sched- uling, operations and staffing. Study and Report Guidelines FCMAT visited the county office on November 15-16, 2016 to conduct interviews, collect data and review documents. This report is the result of those activities and is divided into the following sections: • Executive Summary • Special Education Teacher Caseloads and Teacher Assistance • Related Service Provider (formerly Designated Instruction Provider) Caseloads • Transportation • Appendices In writing its reports, FCMAT uses the Associated Press Stylebook, a comprehensive guide to usage and accepted style that emphasizes conciseness and clarity. In addition, this guide empha- sizes plain language, discourages the use of jargon and capitalizes relatively few terms. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 2 INTRODUCTION Study Team The study team was composed of the following members: Shayleen Harte Michael Rea* FCMAT Intervention Specialist Executive Director Bakersfield, CA West County Transportation Agency Santa Rosa, CA Jackie Kirk-Martinez, Ed.D. JoAnn Murphy FCMAT Consultant FCMAT Consultant Pismo Beach, CA Santee, CA John Lotze FCMAT Technical Writer Bakersfield, CA *As a member of this study team, this consultant was not representing his respective employer but was working solely as an independent contractor for FCMAT. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary The Siskiyou County Office of Education (county office) does not have any formal evaluation process for determining the need for paraeducators (whom it refers to as teacher assistants) in special education classrooms and/or for students who require more intensive direct support. When a student or a classroom requires more instructional support than Education Code or industry standards, local education agencies (LEAs) typically use a formal Special Circumstance Instructional Assistance (SCIA) evaluation process. This process enables LEAs to use a consistent and transparent procedure for determining the need for additional resources. It would benefit the county office to use the SCIA evaluation process to determine when a student or a classroom requires more teacher assistant support than Education Code or industry standards. If this process is used, policies and procedures should be developed, and the county office should conduct a review of all teacher assistant placements so that it can use these resources more effec- tively. It will also need to provide employees with professional development regarding this new process to ensure a common understanding throughout all county office-operated programs and to implement the process effectively. The county office does not have caseload guidelines for all programs and classes. Administrators and direct service providers consistently reported that the county office does not have a process for determining the staff support required per class, although staff have regularly asked for processes and clarifications. Employees reported that mid-level administrators were not clear about the criteria or reasons for when staff are added or moved to or from a program. When reviewing staffing ratios and caseload sizes using statutory requirements and industry standards, FCMAT was unable to determine the rationale for staffing allocations for the various programs, and most seemed overstaffed upon first review. FCMAT does not recommend a reduction in staff until the county office formally analyzes the need for staff based on students’ needs. The SCIA process should be used to determine the need for teacher assistant staffing in classrooms. There are many variables to consider, including the following: • The large geographic region served, which requires some staff to travel more than usual. • Whether additional staff are required due to specialized student needs. • Students with significant behavioral and safety needs. • Students who need support for mainstreaming into general education classes. Staff report that there are few professional development opportunities for certificated teachers or classified teacher assistants, though these employees appear eager for professional development opportunities. Certificated teachers and classified assistants for both general education and special education should receive consistent and ongoing professional development because this will make them better equipped to support all students. Local educational agencies (LEAs) that do not offer regular training and professional development are more likely to add staff to address behaviors rather than have existing staff implement learned strategies to help students be successful. Staff indicated that the county office lacks a formal process for determining a student’s need to be enrolled in extended school year (ESY) as part of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) outlined in the Education Code. The county office should develop and implement a process for determining the need for ESY and provide staff with professional development regarding this process. Staff indicated that there were 11 adults to 15 students, a ratio of 0.7-to-1, during 2016 ESY, which is well above the industry standard. Extended school year for special education has SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the same industry standards for staffing as the regular school year for each individual program, so the county office should staff ESY accordingly. The county office has three certificated teachers with 200-day contracts who are required to teach ESY, and they should continue to do so. However, any additional instructional assistants should be included in the ESY staffing assign- ments only if the SCIA process finds unique circumstances that warrant additional staff. The county office operates its own pupil transportation for special education students, providing transportation to approximately 85 of the 130 students (approximately 65%), who attend county office-operated classes at various schools throughout the county. Like most LEAs, the county office receives inadequate transportation funding: during the 2015-16 school year, transportation funding accounted for approximately 28.7% of total costs, with the remaining costs billed back to the districts that use the service. For 2015-16, the overall transportation cost per pupil was approximately $6,492.66, which is reasonable for a large rural county. School bus maintenance is performed by a local contractor, and the county office uses some other local vendors for other vehicle maintenance. The overall cost is relatively low and not sufficient to justify the county office creating a mechanic position. The county office’s parent transportation handbook essentially guarantees school transportation for all special education students. Parents complete a Permission to Transport form that requests transportation, but the form has no place for a county office official to verify that the service is appropriate or to indicate that it is the result of the Individualized Education Program (IEP) process. This is unusual. Typically, the IEP team meets and determines whether school transpor- tation is a necessary related service to ensure FAPE and the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). If the IEP team determines that transportation is necessary, school officials typically complete a transportation request form. Parents often complete an emergency contact form that might include other information about their child once transportation has been offered and accepted. The county office should revise its transportation assignment process to ensure that county office officials request the service through the IEP process. The county office does not have a state-certified school bus driver instructor on staff; rather, it contracts with a certified instructor. The county office wants to have its transportation supervisor certified as an instructor; however, the supervisor does not have the five years of accident-free school bus driving experience that the California Department of Education (CDE) requires of candidates for its School Bus Driver Instructor Program. Over time, the county office has created more routes that use vehicles other than school buses to transport students. A greater level of safety and care is required by law for school buses than for other vehicles. The county office should consider once again using school buses for these routes to ensure the highest level of safety for students. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 5 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS Findings and Recommendations Special Education Teacher Caseloads and Teacher Assistants For the purposes of this report, the staffing of teachers and paraeducators is reported together. The county office does not use a formal process for determining the need for paraeducators (which the county office calls teacher assistants) in classrooms or for students who require more intensive direct supports. FCMAT used industry standards or Education Code, as applicable, and this information is shown in the tables below. Local education agencies throughout California use teacher assistants in a variety of delivery models, most commonly for whole class support in resource and special day classrooms. Teacher assistants are also used to support mainstreaming or inclusion in the general education classroom, and to meet intensive behavioral, social/emotional or safety needs. FCMAT was unable to obtain a consistent formula or guideline when deter- mining the need for teacher assistants. When a student or a classroom requires more instructional support than indicated by Education Code or industry standards, LEAs typically use a formal Special Circumstance Instructional Assistance (SCIA) evaluation process. This process gives LEAs a consistent and transparent proce- dure for determining the need for additional resources. A sample has been included in Appendix A for reference. If the county office adopts an SCIA evaluation process, it should establish poli- cies and procedures and conduct a review of all teacher assistant placements to use these resources more effectively. Professional development is also needed to successfully implement this process. The tables below show current staffing levels in county office-operated programs, based on docu- ments provided by the county office. The teacher assistant staffing in the charts do not include resource medical or licensed vocational nurse (LVN) support documented in the classroom. Staff consistently reported a lack of formal processes to determine class size and staffing needs within each classroom in the county programs. Employees reported that mid-level administrators were not clear about the criteria or reasons for when staff are added or moved to or from a program. Preschool The county office provides two special day class (SDC) preschools for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Education Code 56441.5 states: Appropriate instructional adult-to-child ratios for group services shall be dependent on the needs of the child. However, because of the unique needs of individuals with exceptional needs between the ages of three and five years, inclusive, who require special education and related services, the number of children per instructional adult shall be less than ratios set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 8264.8 for young children in a regular preschool program. Group services provided to individuals with exceptional needs between the ages of three and five years, inclusive, identified as severely disabled pursuant to Section 56030.5 shall not exceed an instructional adult-to-child ratio of one to five. In interviews, staff indicated that many students in these two classes have significant social, emotional, academic and language challenges, as well as beginning learning and initial self-help skills challenges, indicating that the classrooms should be staffed at an adult-to-student ratio of SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 6 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS at least 1-to-5 and as high as 1-to-3. Because of the geographical challenges and the needs of the students served, a ratio of 1-to-3 was used for this report. The two classes are offered five days a week for 3.5 hours per day. According to county office data, the adult-to-student ratio in the two classes differs. FCMAT was unable to determine the rationale for the staffing allocation for these two classes. Employees indicated they did not know how staff were assigned to the classrooms or the number of hours needed in the classes. FCMAT calculated the need based on a 1-to-3 ratio and 3.5 hours per day. The county office staffs the classes with four-hour per day teacher assistants. The teachers are full-day employees with 3.5 hours of instructional time. Based on the Education Code and county office data, the county office-operated preschool program for students with moderate to severe disabilities is overstaffed, and staffing could be reduced by 0.7 full-time equivalent (FTE) teacher assistant positions. However, FCMAT does not recommend a reduction until the county office formally analyzes the need for support staff based on specific student needs. Industry Program Standards Teacher assis- Industry Preschool Total (FTE adult-to- tants by hours/ Standards: 1:3 Moderate/ Teacher Total Total student ratio) FTE (based on 8 adult to student Severe FTE Students Ratio hour FTE) ratio Based on 15 students requires 5 total staff, but SDC 1 13 1:3 14 hours (1.8 FTE) 14 hours of TAs. Based on 9 students re- quires 3 total staff, but 7 SDC 1 7 1:3 12.5 hours (1.6 FTE) hours of TAs. 26.5 hours 21 hours SDC Total 2 20 1:10 2:6 (3.3 FTE) (2.6 FTE) Source: County office data and Education Code 56441.5 Resource Specialist Program Education Code 56362(c) states: Caseloads for resource specialists shall be stated in the local policies developed pursuant to Section 56195.8 and in accordance with regulations established by the board. No resource specialist shall have a caseload which exceeds 28 pupils. In addition, Education Code 56362 (6) (f) also states: At least 80% of the resource specialists within a local plan shall be provided with an instructional aide. The county office contracts with districts to provide instructional aide support using district staff for students served by the itinerant resource specialist. The county office has 3.0 FTE resource specialists. The county office provides specialized academic instruction to districts that have a total enrollment of less than 120 students. The three resource specialists currently serve 14 areas including the county jail and court and community school. Because of the large geographical area served, the resource specialists travel more than the average, and thus FCMAT does not recom- mend reducing teaching staff by 0.75 FTE to maximize caseloads. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 7 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS Education Code # of hours Program Total Total Total FTE-to-Student teacher assis- Teacher FTE Students Ratio Ratio tants RSP 3 63 1:21 1:28 7 Source: County office data and Education Code 56362(c) Special Day Classes There are no Education Code guides or mandates for special day class (SDC) caseloads; therefore, FCMAT used industry standards for this study, which are included in the tables below. The county office does not have a manual or brochure that describes its SDC service delivery models or program, and staff indicated there was not a clear procedure or process for referring students to an SDC. The county office provides eight SDCs countywide for elementary school students with moderate to severe disabilities, serving approximately 69 students with significant cognitive delays. Compared to the industry standard staffing ratio of one teacher to 10-12 students, the county is overstaffed by 1.1 certificated FTE (based on one teacher to 10 students). However, because the county office serves a large geographical area, FCMAT does not recommend a decrease in certificated staffing at this time. The county office provides 21.7 FTE teacher assistants in the elementary classes for moderately to severely disabled students. Compared to the industry standard of two six-hour assistants per classroom, the county office is overstaffed by 9.7 FTE teacher assistants. Because the county office has no process for determining the allocation of additional support staff for classes based on students’ specific needs, FCMAT could not analyze the staffing needed. Thus FCMAT is unable to determine whether students’ specialized needs justify these 9.7 FTE. The table below shows the wide range of class sizes and number of instructional assistant hours per class in the county office’s SDC program. Both administrators and direct service providers consistently reported that the county office does not have a process for determining the staffing needed in each class, though staff have regularly asked for processes and clarifications. Staffing needed per Industry Industry Standards Teacher assis- Standards of two Program: (FTE teach- tants by hours 6-hour assistants Elementary Total er-to-student and FTE (8 hours per class (8 hours Moderate/ Teacher Total Total ratio) per day = 1.0 per day = 1.0 Severe FTE Students Ratio FTE) FTE) SDC 1 8 1:10-12 26 hours (3.3 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 12 1:10-12 28 hours (3.5 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 5 1:10-12 14 hours (1.8 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 7 1:10-12 15 hours (1.9 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 6 1:10-12 12 hours (1.5 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 12 1:10-12 18.75 (2.3FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 8 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS Staffing needed per Industry Industry Standards Teacher assis- Standards of two Program: (FTE teach- tants by hours 6-hour assistants Elementary Total er-to-student and FTE (8 hours per class (8 hours Moderate/ Teacher Total Total ratio) per day = 1.0 per day = 1.0 Severe FTE Students Ratio FTE) FTE) SDC 1 9 1:10-12 29 hours (3.6 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 10 1:10-12 30.5 (3.8 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) 173.25 hours (21.7 SDC Total 8 69 1:8.6 8:80-96 FTE) 96 hours (12.0 FTE) Sources: County office data and industry standards The county office provides two special education classes for students who require mental health and social emotional support. Most students are eligible for this service because they have been identified as emotionally disturbed. Based on industry standards, these two classes are appropri- ately staffed with instructional assistants but are overstaffed with certificated teachers by 0.8 FTE (based on one teacher to 10 students). Because the county office serves a large geographic area, FCMAT does not recommend a certificated staffing reduction. Staffing need- Program: Industry Teacher assis- ed per Industry Moderate/ Standards tant hours and Standards of two Severe Total (FTE teach- FTE (8 hour 6-hour assistants Emotionally Teacher Total Total er-to-student per day = 1.0 per class (8 hours Disturbed FTE Students Ratio ratio) FTE) per day = 1.0 FTE) SDC 1 5 1:8-10 10 hours (1.3 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 7 1:8-10 13 hours (1.6 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 2 12 1:6 2:16-20 23 hours 24 hours (2.9 FTE) (3 FTE) Sources: County office data and industry standards The county office operates two classes for secondary school students with moderate to severe disabilities. These classes have appropriate certificated staffing and caseloads; however, they may be overstaffed by 0.9 FTE teacher assistants. Because this analysis does not include consideration of students who may have significant behavioral and safety needs or students who need support for mainstreaming, the county office should exercise caution and not make staffing changes until it has used the SCIA process to determine staffing needs. Staffing needed per Industry Teacher assis- Industry Standards Program: Standards tant hours and of two 6-hour as- Secondary Total (FTE teach- FTE (8 hours sistants per class Moderate/ Teacher Total Total er-to-stu- per day = 1.0 (8 hours per day = Severe FTE Students Ratio dent ratio) FTE) 1.0 FTE) SDC 1 11 1:10-12 15 hours (1.9 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 11 1:10-12 16 hours (2.0 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 2 22 1:11 2:10-22 31 hours (3.9 FTE) 24 hours (3 FTE) Sources: County office data and industry standards Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 9 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS The county office operates one transition class for students with disabilities who are 18-22 years old and who have not completed high school with a diploma and require additional life skills and community skills. This program is located on the local community college campus. Students are given work skills training and jobs on campus until they are sufficiently independent to work off campus with supervision. Students learn daily life skills to enable them to become more indepen- dent. The class size is low compared to industry standards, but instructional assistant staffing is appropriate based on industry average. Staffing need- Industry ed per Industry Standards Teacher assistant Standards of two Program: Total (FTE teacher hours and FTE (8 6 hour assistants Transition Teacher Total Total to student hours per day = per class (8 hours 18-22 FTE Students Ratio ratio) 1.0 FTE) per day = 1.0 FTE) SDC 1 7 1:12-17 10.5 hours (1.3 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) SDC 1 7 1:7 1:12-17 10.5 hours (1.3 FTE) 12 hours (1.5 FTE) Source: County office data and industry standards Professional Development Staff reported that there are few professional development opportunities for certificated teachers or classified teacher assistants, though both certificated and classified employees appeared eager for professional development opportunities. Certificated teachers and classified teacher assistants in both general education and special educa- tion need to receive consistent and ongoing professional development. This training can be deliv- ered in a variety of ways including online, in-person, hands-on and through modeling. Educators who receive consistent and ongoing training are better equipped to support all students, able to differentiate and scaffold their instruction, and better able to work with hard-to-handle students. When staff are equipped with proper strategies and tools, LEAs see many benefits including an optimization of fiscal resources. For example, LEAs that do not offer regular training and professional development are more likely to add staff to address student behaviors rather than use existing staff who can implement strategies they have learned to help students be successful. Administrators indicated that recent certificated bargaining agreements have increased teachers’ noninstructional work days, which allows for professional development. Bargaining agreements with classified staff do not include additional work days. Classified staff could be offered paid professional development after the school day, on weekends, or through in-class on-the-job training. Providing a structured plan for all staff to receive training before the start of school allows collaboration among staff with similar jobs and among those who work in the same classroom to maximize their learning and implement new strategies. Initial professional development topics might include behavior, differentiated instruction, accommoda- tions and modifications. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 10 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS Extended School Year The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Subtitle B, Chapter III, Part 300, Subpart B, §300.106 states the following with regard to extended school year (ESY): Extended school year (ESY) services. (a) General. (1) Each public agency must ensure that extended school year services are available as necessary to provide FAPE, consis- tent with paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (2) Extended school year services must be provided only if a child’s IEP Team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §§300.320 through 300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child. (3) In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not-- (i) Limit extended school year services to particular categories of disability; or (ii) Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services. (b) Definition. As used in this section, the term extended school year services means special education and related services that-- (1) Are provided to a child with a disability-- (i) Beyond the normal school year of the public agency; (ii) In accordance with the child’s IEP; and (iii) At no cost to the parents of the child; and (2) Meet the standards of the SEA.(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)) The county office offers ESY to students in accordance with their IEPs; however, staff indicated that there is not a formal process for determining a student’s need for ESY to ensure FAPE. Districts statewide have and use processes and procedures for this, and a sample of these is included in Appendix B. Employees reported that 15 students attended ESY during the summer of 2016, served by 11 instructional staff. This is a 0.7-to-1 staff-to-student ratio, which is well above any industry standard listed in the tables above for the various programs offered. Documents indicated that the county office has three certificated teachers with 200-day per year contracts who are required to teach ESY. These teachers should continue to do so. However, teacher assistants should be assigned to ESY only if the SCIA process identifies unique circum- stances that warrant additional staff. If enrollment increases, staffing should be adjusted accord- ingly in keeping with industry standards. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Develop policies, procedures and guidelines for assigning instructional assis- tants to classes or students. 2. Provide professional development to all staff regarding the SCIA process and its implementation. 3. Reallocate instructional staff throughout the county, and reduce staffing if necessary. 4. Create and use a professional development survey to elicit feedback from teacher assistants and teachers. Use this information to help guide and deter- mine professional development offerings. 5. Provide a variety of professional development to general education and special education teachers and teacher assistants, including online, in-person, modeling and hands-on training. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 11 SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER CASELOADS AND TEACHER ASSISTANTS 6. Develop and implement within the business office a rationale and process for approving increases and decreases in staffing. 7. Develop caseload guidelines for all programs and classes. 8. Provide a consistent, clear and understandable process for determining staffing needs. 9. Develop and implement a process for determining students’ eligibility for participation in ESY, and provide staff with professional development regarding this process. 10. Staff ESY according to industry standards. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 12 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 13 RELATED SERVICE PROVIDER CASELOADS Related Service Provider (formerly Designated Instruction Provider) Caseloads Adapted Physical Education The county office does not employ adapted physical education (APE) teachers; rather, students with APE needs receive indirect consultation provided by the occupational therapist. A student may have multiple related services that are needed to help him or her benefit from the educa- tional program; however, the Adapted Physical Education Guidelines provided by the CDE (Revised 2012) state that occupational therapy, physical therapy and adapted physical education may not be substituted for one another. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Closely examine the adapted physical education needs of students with disabilities, and ensure that related services are provided by a certificated adapted physical education teacher. 2. Provide training and support to IEP teams to help them document the related services required for each student’s educational benefit. 3. Define the collaborative roles of occupational and physical therapists and adapted physical education teachers. 4. Foster close collaboration among and between occupational therapists, physical therapists and adapted physical education teachers to ensure seamless contributions to the educational program and each student’s IEP goals. Deaf and Hard of Hearing and Audiology County office documents show that the county office employs a 1.0 FTE deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) specialist and 3.0 FTE resource aide positions to serve 16 schools. Two of the aide positions were filled and one was open at the time of FCMAT’s fieldwork. The caseload for the DHH specialist is 21 students, which is in line with the industry standards established in other districts throughout California. However, in Siskiyou County this position serves students in 16 schools spread across a wide geographical area; this requires significant travel, which results in less time for students. Industry Standard Provider FTE # of students Caseload Caseload Deaf and Hard of Hearing Specialist 1.0 21 21 15-25 Sources: County office data and industry standards The county office does not employ an audiologist for the annual audiology examination for students with hearing impairments. It was not clear during staff interviews how these requirements are being met. Some staff presumed parents were providing for the audiology examinations. These examinations are critical to education planning for students with hearing impairments, particularly when changes in hearing require adjustments in specialized equipment used in the classroom. The county office needs to provide annual audiology examinations for SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 14 RELATED SERVICE PROVIDER CASELOADS these students with a licensed audiologist and ensure that the results are discussed and taken into account when developing annual IEPs. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Ensure that the open DHH resource aide position is filled to maintain support to DHH students throughout the county. 2. Provide annual audiology examinations, by a licensed audiologist, for students with hearing impairments. Vision The county office employs two individuals for a total of 1.0 FTE vision specialist position (one specialist is 0.4 FTE and the other is 0.6 FTE). The average caseload is 21 students at 16 schools throughout the county, thus these staff are itinerant. Services for visually impaired (VI) students include orientation and mobility (OM) training as needed. The industry standard caseload for VI and OM is 10-30 students, thus the county office’s staffing is within the standard. Industry Standard Provider FTE # of students Caseload Caseload Vision and OM Specialist 1.0 21 21 10-30 Source: County office data and industry standards Recommendation The county office should: 1. Maintain its current staffing for students with visual impairments in accor- dance with the industry standard. Mental Health Services and Psychologists On June 30, 2011, Assembly Bill (AB) 114, Chapter 43, Statutes of 2011 was signed into law. Under AB 114, several sections of Chapter 26.5 of the California Government Code were amended or rendered inoperative. These changes ended the state mandate on county mental health agencies to provide mental health services to disabled students. As a result, LEAs are now solely responsible for ensuring that disabled students receive educationally-related mental health and related services. The Siskiyou County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) receives approximately $326,826 annually from the CDE for mental health services. Although not required, it is a best practice to have a written plan for providing all programs and services for students with disabil- ities, including mental health services. The SELPA’s current plan does not include mental health services. The county office psychologists provide crisis counseling, short-term counseling and direct coun- seling as designated by students’ IEPs. Disabled students who need more intensive counseling are referred to the county office psychologists for educationally-related mental health services. Services provided include traditional psychologist evaluation support duties in districts, as well Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 15 RELATED SERVICE PROVIDER CASELOADS as transition age assessments and support. The psychologists also serve preschools in the northern and southern areas of the county. Current educationally-related mental health services include 2.0 FTE behavioral trainers (employees of Remi Vista) to support and train 1-to-1 teacher aides (county office employees). Additional classroom support is provided by 2.7 FTE behavioral aides (Remi Vista employees). All behavioral services and trainings are provided by Remi Vista, a nonpublic agency certified by the CDE. County office staff reported that there are no clear guidelines for documenting the services provided or the provider. It is a best practice to have the director of county special educa- tion monitor such services and providers. The county office has no protocol for the use of Remi Vista aides in county office-operated or district programs, and no provision for residential placement. However, staff reported that some students may need residential treatment but have not been assessed for this service. The county office employs 4.0 FTE psychologists to serve 24 school districts with a total enroll- ment of 5,804 students in 2015-16 (according to Dataquest), for a psychologist-to-student ratio of 1-to-1,451, which is a lower level of staffing than the industry standard ratio of 1-to-1,321 provided by kidsdata.org. Based on the industry standard, the county office is understaffed by 0.4 FTE psychologists. Industry Provider FTE # of students Caseload Ratio Standard Ratio Psychologist 4.0 5,804 1:1,451 1:1,321 Source: County office data and Dataquest 2015-16 Recommendations The county office should: 1. Consider increasing psychologist staffing by 0.4 FTE to achieve indus- try-standard staffing. 2. Create a written mental health plan in cooperation with SELPA member districts. Ensure that the plan includes the full range of services for students with disabilities, including residential treatment and mental health services 3. Create protocols for referring students to assessment for mental health services, and provide SELPA member districts with the training and support needed to fully implement the new protocols. 4. Create guidelines and protocols for documenting the educationally necessary mental health services provided, and ensure that the director of county special education monitors these services and providers. Nurses The county office employs 3.63 FTE school nurses; these positions are funded by sources other than the special education budget. The nurses provide all mandated hearing and vision screenings throughout the county. FCMAT used the statewide average staffing ratio for school nurses in California provided by www.kidsdata.org, which is 1-to-2,784. According to the county office’s data, its nurse staffing-to-student ratio is 1-to-1,599 which is a higher level of staffing than the industry standard. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 16 RELATED SERVICE PROVIDER CASELOADS The county office employs 3.5 FTE medical resource assistants, who are licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) working under the direction of the school nurse to provide specialized healthcare for disabled students. The school nurse is responsible for developing specialized health care proce- dures for each student and for training and monitoring the LVNs assigned to individual students. The current annual salary for medical resource assistants, including benefits, is $33,624. Staff expressed concerns about the title and the low salary for this position, which is held only by LVNs. This position title is unique to the Siskiyou County Office of Education; in most districts reviewed by FCMAT, the position title is LVN and the salary range is higher. It would benefit the county office to review the salary range for this position. Industry Standard Provider FTE # of students Caseload Caseload Nurse 3.63 5,804 1,599 2,784 Source: County office data and kidsdata.org Recommendations The county office should: 1. Analyze its nurse staffing and determine if reductions are needed to bring staffing closer to the industry standard. 2. Change the job title for medical resource assistants to LVN. 3. Review and consider increasing the salary range for the LVN position. Occupational and Physical Therapy The county office has 2.0 FTE unfilled and open occupational therapist (OT) positions for the 2016-17 school year. It is filling 0.88 FTE OT position using a nonpublic agency called Tiny Eye, which has conditional approval for certification from the CDE. An additional 0.75 FTE OT position is being filled using an independent contractor. No physical therapist (PT) was listed in the county office’s staffing list. The county office’s per-FTE caseload for OT is 27 students; the industry standard per-FTE caseload for OT and PT is 45-55 students. Industry Standard Provider FTE # of students Caseload Caseload Occupational Therapist 1.63 44 27 45-55 Source: County office data and industry standards Based on the data in the above table, the county office needs only 1.0 FTE OT position and thus could consider eliminating its 1.0 FTE of its open OT positions for an estimated annual savings of $73,508. This amount is based on the contracted rate for non-county office service because the county office has been unable to hire its own occupational therapists. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Continue to monitor the caseloads for occupational therapy and use the industry standard for staffing purposes. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 17 RELATED SERVICE PROVIDER CASELOADS 2. Consider reducing the staffing for occupational therapy by 1.0 FTE if the caseload remains consistent. Speech and Language Pathologists The county office employs 4.26 FTE speech and language pathologists, who provide speech and language services to 25 districts as well as to preschool age students in the northern and southern regions of the county. The county office also uses an outside agency called Tiny Eye to provide telepractice (that is, delivering speech and language pathology and audiology services by telecommunication, linking clinicians to clients and to other clinicians for assessment, intervention or consultation) to extend speech and language resources when they are unable to fill open positions with qualified staff. Tiny Eye has conditional approval from the CDE. The county office has a 0.63 FTE staff speech and language pathologist employee position unfilled and open. This position is being filled for the time being by a nonpublic agency at an annual cost of $115,834. The annual cost of the part-time speech and language assistants totals $119,984. FCMAT found discrepancies in speech and language caseload data provided by the county office. The administrative staff’s calculation of caseloads includes students with IEPs as well as students who are being evaluated but who are not yet eligible for special education services. Administrators reported that 298 students countywide are eligible for speech and language services. The Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Subtitle B, Chapter III, Part 300, Subpart B, §300.323 (c) (1-2) states that once eligibility is established and an IEP is written, a student with a disability shall receive all services; students should not be considered eligible until an evaluation and IEP are completed. Data gathered from the Special Education Information System (SEIS) indicates that a total of 139 students in the county are eligible for speech and language services; this includes 23 preschool students and 116 students in grades K-12. Because the SEIS documents students with IEPs, this data should be the primary reference used when determining special education staffing. The SEIS data differs significantly from the report from the county office administrators. FCMAT used the SEIS data for its staffing analysis. California Education Code Section 56363.3 states that the average SELPAwide caseload for speech and language pathologists serving students in grades K-12 shall not exceed 55 students. The county office’s current average speech and language caseload for K-12 students is 29.8. Education Code Section 56441.7(a) sets the maximum caseload for speech pathologists working with preschool students at 40 students. The county office’s current average caseload of preschool age students is 23. The county office’s preschool speech and language pathologist is also respon- sible for all initial evaluations of preschool students referred for special education. Based on the SEIS caseload data, the district is overstaffed by 1.7 FTE in speech therapists compared to statutory requirements in Education Code for K-12 students. Reducing staffing to achieve the maximum statutory caseload could result in an annual savings of $141,257. Because the preschool speech and language therapist provides evaluation services as well as speech and language therapy, it would benefit the county office to continue this position at the current caseload. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 18 RELATED SERVICE PROVIDER CASELOADS Travel time is a significant factor in some staffing decisions for speech and language. Staff reported a 2.5-hour commute to provide one session of speech therapy. Provider FTE # of students Caseload Statutory Maximum Speech Pathologist K-12 3.89* 116 1:29.8 Average 55 Speech Pathologist Pre-K 1 23 1:23.0 Maximum 40 Source: County office and Education Code sections 56363.3 and 56441.7(a) * This includes 0.63 FTE provided by a nonpublic agency. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Ensure that staffing is based on eligible students only. 2. Consider reducing travel time by assigning Tiny Eye to provide services in remote areas in lieu of extensive travel by staff. 3. Provide all speech and language specialists with training to help ensure compliance when evaluating students to determine eligibility for special education services. 4. Consider reducing speech pathologist staffing by 1.7 FTE for a potential annual savings of $141,257 Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 19 TRANSPORTATION Transportation Funding and Finance School transportation is one of the most poorly funded programs in California’s education budget. It was fully funded up to 1977. At that time, LEAs would report their operational costs and were fully reimbursed in the subsequent year. After the passage of Proposition 13, California gradually reduced the percentage of reimbursement. In the 1982-83 school year the state capped transportation funding for each LEA at 80% of the reported costs at that time. Over the years, there have been occasional cost of living adjustments (COLAs), but as costs increased, the almost completely unchanged funding covered an ever smaller percentage of the need. In the 2007-08 school year, transportation funding covered approximately 45% of the statewide approved costs; there is considerable variance from this average among individual LEAs because of differences in demographics and needs. During the Great Recession, California reduced all categorical program funding by approximately 20%. That cut to pupil transportation funding has never been restored. The 2013-14 school year was the first year of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF). Most categorical programs were folded into this funding formula; however, pupil transportation funding remained separate. Under LCFF, transportation funding was frozen at the 2012-13 level and has had no COLAs or other increases. There is a requirement for LEAs to have a maintenance of effort (MOE), meaning that an LEA must spend at least as much as it received the prior year, which so far has been frozen at the 2012-13 funding level. Under Revenue Limit funding, the CDE collected pupil transportation data (Form TRAN), which was published annually and used to compare revenue to expenses. Under LCFF, however, the CDE no longer collects this data. The county office received $158,466, or approximately 28.7% of its transportation funding, from the state in 2015-16. The remainder of the program costs were billed back to the participating school districts using a formula delineated in the Siskiyou County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) documents. That formula specifies that 50% of the bill-back is based on the one-way mileage of each student, and 50% on the number of students served as calculated at December 1 and April 1 of each school year. In addition, over the past three school years, the county office has assessed a vehicle replacement amount, based on the depreciation of the current fleet. For the 2015-16 school year that amount was $54,494.90 and is included in the total bill-back amount. For the past five school years, the total amounts billed back to the school districts are as follows: • 2011-12: $327,678.12 • 2012-13: $315,157.02 • 2013-14: $341,112.66 • 2014-15: $322,545.00 • 2015-16: $338,915.58 For the 2015-16 school year, the total transportation budget, including the bus replacement amount, was $551,876.49. The total per-pupil cost for transportation was approximately $6,492.66. The average statewide per-pupil cost for special education transportation for the 2011-12 fiscal year, the last year this data was collected by the CDE, was approximately $6,500. Considering that costs have undoubtedly risen since then and FCMAT typically sees higher transportation costs in rural counties, the approximate current per-pupil cost for students in Siskiyou County is reasonable. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 20 TRANSPORTATION Each county office driver is either a teacher assistant/driver (driving a vehicle other than a school bus) or a teacher assistant/bus driver (driving a school bus). The teacher assistant/driver employees receive a step 1 hourly salary of $11.78, and the teacher assistant/bus driver employees receive a step 1 hourly salary of $12.02. Each classification is paid the same amount for all hours worked, regardless of whether they are driving or working as a teacher assistant in the classroom. The teacher assistant time is charged to the special education budget, and the driver time is charged to the transportation budget. The county office has nine teacher assistant/drivers and five teacher assistant/bus drivers; all of these are full-time, ten-month positions. The transportation department manages the repair and maintenance of all county office vehicles. All parts and repair labor are charged to the appropriate programs. All of the school bus mainte- nance is performed by Evans Transportation, a local school bus contract provider in Yreka. Repair and maintenance of other vehicles are performed by Jim Wilson Ford and other local vehicle repair shops. The county office issues open purchase orders for repairs and parts for transporta- tion department vehicles; parts and repairs for all other vehicles require a separate purchase order. The county office does not own or operate its own fueling system; fuel is purchased at convenient local card lock locations. Drivers and other county office employees who regularly drive county office vehicles are assigned fueling cards that can be used at these locations. Card lock fueling stations are typically unattended and sell fuel at a lower price for commercial operations. School districts and county offices of education are government entities and thus legally exempt from federal excise taxes for gasoline and diesel, and from state excise tax for diesel used for pupil trans- portation (except for the $0.01 per gallon excise tax that is reported quarterly). The county office seeks federal and state excise tax reimbursement when using vendors that charge the tax. Fuel receipts appear to be checked and monitored to ensure that fuel is purchased only for county office vehicles. There are no reports of inappropriate fuel card use by county office employees. Tires are purchased locally from Les Schwab and Weldon Tire. Tires used for local government purpose are also legally exempt from federal excise tax. Les Schwab is not charging this tax, but Weldon Tire is. The county office is also eligible for state bid pricing for tires. Invoices FCMAT reviewed did not indicate whether the county office is benefitting from state bid pricing. Sometimes local vendors are able to provide a lower price than the state bid price. The amounts invoiced for school bus and other vehicle maintenance in the 2015-16 school year do not appear excessive and are not sufficiently high for the county office to hire an in-house mechanic, particularly as the county office does not own or operate a vehicle repair garage. It is reasonable for the county office to continue having vehicle maintenance performed at outside vendors. The transportation supervisor and other county office maintenance staff do perform some light maintenance such as light bulb replacements and tire changes; this appears reasonable and cost effective. No parents currently drive students and receive mileage payment in lieu of transportation service. The county office does not have an in-lieu parent contract in case such a situation arises. Appendix C contains a sample contract. It is a best practice for such a contract to clearly articulate responsibilities and the amount that will be reimbursed; this also helps limit the county office’s liability in case of an accident. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 21 TRANSPORTATION Recommendations The county office should: 1. Continue to seek reimbursement for federal and state excise taxes when purchasing fuel at card lock locations. 2. Ensure that it is receiving the state bid price for tires, or the lowest possible price on tires. 3. Continue to have vehicle maintenance performed by outside vendors and to perform some light maintenance in house. 4. Create and use a contract with parents whose students are eligible for transportation and who choose to drive their children to programs in lieu of receiving transportation. Ensure that the contract clearly articulates respective responsibilities and thus minimizes the county office’s risk. Routing and Scheduling The county office’s current procedure for determining whether a special education student will receive transportation is for parents to communicate their desire for transportation services to the transportation supervisor by submitting a Permission to Transport form. The transportation supervisor then schedules the service. This is an unusual procedure. In accordance with the Federal Individual with Disabilities Education Act, (IDEA), school transportation is to be provided to special education students who require it as a related service to access their educational opportunities. However, this is normally determined by the IEP team during the IEP meeting. Typically, once this occurs, the IEP lead or program specialist will fill out a transportation request form that is transmitted to the transportation department. The county office’s transportation supervisor has begun attending IEP meetings for incoming students to ensure that their transportation needs are properly met and that this is communicated to parents. However, the county office does not have an IEP process in place to ensure that the transportation service meets the requirement for LRE or FAPE. In fact, county office documents state that every student is guaranteed transportation. There is no place on the county office’s form for a county office official to indicate that they have authorized or approved the service. In addition, the county office does not provide an accompanying but separate emergency contact form for parents to complete with details about their student’s needs that may not be evident on the transportation request. This is unusual: most school district and county offices of education require such a form. The county office currently transports approximately 85 special education students on 14 routes. School buses are used for three of these routes; for the remaining 11 routes, the county office uses sedans, small vans or minivans. In the past, school buses were used on more routes, but as buses have gone out of service or drivers have not been available, the county office has increasingly relied on other vehicles. According to California Vehicle Code Section 545, students transported to school or school activities in California must be in a school bus or in a vehicle that is designed for and carries fewer than nine passengers and the driver. Only one wheelchair passenger may be on any such vehicle. The county office meets these requirements; it has an average of 6.07 students per route, SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 22 TRANSPORTATION which is a reasonable passenger load for the geographic size of the county and the distances traveled. Some students are transported more than 50 miles to their school. Programs are located at multiple schools throughout the county including in Etna, Mt. Shasta City, Weed, Yreka, Fort Jones and Happy Camp. For the 2016-17 school year, the transportation department eliminated one route, reducing total routes from 15 routes to 14. The transportation supervisor arranges and schedules routes with input from drivers. The department does not have a computerized routing system, but none is warranted for such a small program. The transportation supervisor and drivers communicate using cell phones issued by the county office; these phones do not have texting capability. In addition, staff use personal telephones and text when necessary. Some areas of the county have no cell phone service. The current arrangement appears to be the best option available for the transportation department. When the transportation supervisor is driving a route, the special education department secretary helps communicate with drivers, parents and schools. When there is a shortage of drivers and some routes are not covered, the transportation super- visor and drivers arrange for vehicles on other routes to pick up students. This extends route time, and students are often late to school in the morning and late home in the afternoon as a result. These changes are typically communicated to parents as needed. The county office has no substitute drivers available in case existing drivers are absent. Even on a typical fully staffed day, a number of students are often delivered to school after school starts in the morning and picked up before the dismissal bell in the afternoon, regularly reducing the amount of time students are in the classroom. This is typically done to accommodate the transportation department’s logistical needs. Although this is convenient for the transportation department and most likely helps keep transportation costs low, the practice could be reducing some students’ access to a FAPE as required by the IDEA. Although maintaining full-time, ten-month positions for the drivers by also using them to assist in classrooms most likely increases driver recruitment and retention, these types of split positions typically are not the most reliable method of providing consistent, calculable aide time in class- rooms. The county office determines that these positions are drivers first, so these employees are pulled from classroom duties any time they are needed to drive. Teachers consistently reported that they cannot rely on the driver positions as regular aides in the classroom. Many of the drivers park the county office vans and school buses at their homes overnight or at another local school district site. This typically helps keep operating costs low. The county office has two nurses who are assigned to students on bus routes based on their specific needs. No aides are assigned to school bus routes. Some special education students 18-22 years old in the transition program ride public transit buses, and others with mild to moderate disabilities who attend classes at their local school district are transported by that school district’s school buses. Most of the routes are short, usually an hour or less per morning or afternoon run. Most of the schools that the county office transports students to and from have bell times that are very close to one another, which does not allow for creative or efficient routing. Having different bell times at some local programs would enable one bus route to transport students to and from several sites on time. Although the county office cannot control the bell times of the campuses where its students attend, it may be beneficial to discuss this with the school districts. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 23 TRANSPORTATION Recommendations The county office should: 1. Revise its transportation assignment process to ensure that the need for transportation as a related service is determined by the IEP team at an IEP meeting and that county office officials approve the service rather than parents requesting it. 2. Provide and ensure that parents complete an emergency contact and supple- mental information form for their student. 3. Evaluate its practice of delivering students to school after the start of the school day and picking them up before the end of the school day, and find the best way to remedy this situation. Start a conversation with school districts about adjusting bell times to maximize transportation efficiency. Driver Training and Safety The requirements for school bus driver training in California are contained in Education Code sections 40080-40089. School bus drivers must receive a minimum of 20 hours of classroom training in all units of the Instructor’s Manual for California’s Bus Driver’s Training Course. In addition, a minimum of 20 hours of behind-the-wheel training is required from the Instructor’s Behind-the-Wheel Guide for California’s Bus Driver’s Training Course. School bus drivers must also complete a minimum of 10 hours of in-service training each year to maintain their special certificate validity. In addition, special classroom training is required in the last year of certificate validity to renew. All testing is performed through a specialized officer at the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Office. The license and special certificate are issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). It requires many more hours of both classroom and behind-the-wheel training to teach all of the units in the referenced manuals. Most school districts teach a minimum of 35 hours in the classroom and spend at least that many or more hours behind the wheel. All driver training records must be kept in compliance with laws and regulations. Driver training can only be performed by a State-Certified School Bus Driver Instructor. Behind-the-wheel training may be given by a State-Certified Delegated Behind-the-Wheel Instructor. The State- Certified Delegated Behind-the-Wheel Instructor cannot perform classroom training and cannot document instruction. School bus drivers receive a commercial, Class B license and a California Special Driver Certificate valid for driving a school bus. In addition, school bus drivers must be enrolled in the DMV’s Pull Notice program, which delivers a copy of a driver’s record to the employer. School bus drivers must also be enrolled in a drug and alcohol testing program in compliance with federal law, and a fingerprinting program (background check) that is separate from fingerprinting for school employees, so that the DMV and CHP are notified of any arrests or convictions that could affect licensing. Drivers who transport students in vehicles other than school buses are not required to have any driver training and need only maintain their regular Class C license. Like other school employees, they are required to be fingerprinted. However, the county office also ensures that all of these drivers are enrolled in the DMV’s Pull Notice program, as well as a drug and alcohol testing program similar to the one required for school bus drivers. The county office also provides some training for these drivers. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 24 TRANSPORTATION The county office does not have a State-Certified School Bus Driver Instructor on its staff; rather, it contracts with an independent instructor who works for Evans Transportation. This individual conducts the appropriate training and delivers the documentation to the county office for its records. The instructor charges $45 per hour for classroom or behind-the-wheel instruction, which is in line with amounts paid by most other LEAs for this service. The driver training records FCMAT examined were in order and indicate that drivers are receiving the minimum required training. It would be ideal for the county office to have a State-Certified School Bus Driver Instructor on staff because it would allow the department to train its own drivers and be prepared in case an outside instructor is not available. The minimum requirement to apply for the CDE School Bus Driver Instructor Training Program is five years of accident-free experience as a certified school bus driver, or the equivalent specified by the CDE’s criteria and determination. The county office wants to have its transportation supervisor certified as a school bus driver instructor. However, the transportation supervisor has no experience as a certified school bus driver. Another school bus driver in the department may have the required number of years of accident-free school bus driving experience. A current state-certified instructor must prepare and certify an applicant before they can attend the CDE School Bus Driver Instructor Training Program. School bus drivers perform a pre-trip bus inspection as specified in Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations. The county office’s school bus drivers perform and document this inspec- tion, as do its drivers of other vehicles, thus ensuring that all county office drivers who transport students meet this same requirement. Education Code Section 39831.3 requires LEAs that transport students to adopt a transporta- tion safety plan and outlines items it must address. The county office has a plan that meets the requirements of this code. Education Code Section 39831.5 requires LEAs that transport students to perform school bus evacuation drills and provide school transportation safety information for certain students. The county office is in compliance with these requirements. The federal government has adopted Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. More of those standards apply to school buses than to any other type of vehicle. In addition, Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations has school bus safety requirements for buses and operations. California’s statutes and regulations have special requirements regarding school bus driver training, licensing and operations; these are overseen by the CHP, the CDE and the DMV. These regulations exist to provide a higher level of safety and protection when transporting students. The county office has made a conscious decision to transition to using more vehicles other than school buses to transport students. This is legal and permitted; however, it provides a level of safety that is statistically lower, results in county office students being transported in two very different types of vehicles with different levels of care, and could potentially expose the county office to greater liability. Recommendations The county office should: 1. Work toward ensuring that a member of its staff is trained and can serve as a State-Certified School Bus Driver Instructor. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 25 TRANSPORTATION 2. Consider transitioning back to using school buses for all students to ensure the highest level of safety. Vehicle Maintenance and Fleet Every school bus in California must be inspected annually by a Motor Carrier Inspector of the CHP to ensure compliance with all laws and regulations. Inspectors pay particular attention to steering, brakes and suspension. The CHP also performs an annual inspection of the terminal; this includes inspection of 20% of the school buses (randomly selected), vehicle maintenance records, driver records and federal drug and alcohol testing records. The CHP provides a report called the Safety Compliance Report/Terminal Record Update, more commonly known as the terminal grade. The most recent terminal grade report on the county office was dated December 28, 2015 and indicated a rating of satisfactory, which is the highest rating given by the CHP. The report also indicates the rating for the four previous years, all of which were satisfactory in all categories. The terminal grade is essentially the safety report card for school bus transportation for the county office, and it indicates a recent history of safe operation. The CHP has no respon- sibility to inspect or certify vehicles other than school buses, even if they are used to transport students. Thus there is no official or objective method for determining the safety of county office vehicles other than school buses. School buses in California are required to be inspected by the LEA every 45 days or 3,000 miles, whichever comes first, in accordance with Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 1232 (13CCR1232). As noted above, the county office contracts with Evans Transportation for these inspections. Evans charges $85 per hour for labor, which is competitive with what other LEAs pay for truck or bus fleet maintenance. FCMAT reviewed a sample of mandatory school bus maintenance records and found that school buses are receiving their mandated 45 day/3,000 mile inspections. The county office has six school buses on its fleet list. Two are listed as out of service, but it is unclear what condition has rendered them so. One of these buses was reported to have a “blown” engine but specifics were not provided. The California Air Resources Board has adopted rules regarding diesel particulate emissions from trucks and buses. The rules require that diesel-powered school buses be replaced or retrofitted with a diesel particulate filter. The county office is in compliance with these rules. The transpor- tation supervisor believes that one of the buses outfitted with a diesel particulate filter must be replaced by January 1, 2018; however, this is not the case. Buses that could not be outfitted with such a filter must be replaced by this date; those with such a filter can continue to be operated as long as the filter is working properly. The county office’s fleet list includes 14 vehicles other than school buses that are used for student transportation, including vans, minivans and a sedan. The county office ensures that each of these vehicles receives an annual safety inspection at a local auto dealership. As noted above, the county office’s transportation supervisor and maintenance staff perform some simple vehicle maintenance and tire work. This includes fitting all school buses and other vehicles with studded tires in the late fall through early spring. SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 26 TRANSPORTATION Recommendation The county office should: 1. Continue its current practices and arrangements for vehicle maintenance and inspections. Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 27 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendices SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 28 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 29 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix A Sample Special Circumstance Instructional Assistance Manual SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 30 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 31 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix B Guidelines for Determining Extended School Year (ESY) Sample SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 32 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM San Luis Obispo County Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Guidelines for Determining Extended School Year (ESY) September 2010 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION: What ESY Is and Is Not ....................................................................... 1 I. Guidelines for IEP Teams A. Who Recommends ESY Services? ........................................................................ 2 B. What is the Difference between ESY and Summer School? .................................. 2 C. When Should ESY Services Be Recommended? ................................................... 2 D. Why Should ESY Be Documented in a Child’s IEP? .............................................. 4 E. How Should ESY Eligibility Be Determined? .......................................................... 4 Determination of Need for ESY Worksheet page 1 ................................................ 6 Determination of Need for ESY Worksheet page 2 ................................................ 7 II. Planning for ESY A. Sample Parent Information Sheet ........................................................................... 8 B. ESY Cover Sheet ................................................................................................... 9 III. “Just Prior” Communications A. To Teachers and Related Service Staff .................................................................. 11 B. To Parents .............................................................................................................. 11 APPENDIX: Understanding Extended School Year (ESY): The Legal and Practical Aspects A. Federal Regulations ............................................................................................... 12 B. California Code of Regulations ............................................................................... 12 C. Case Law ............................................................................................................... 14 Acknowledgements: Many thanks to Riverside County SELPA for their help in creating this guide. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: WHAT ESY IS AND IS NOT (Adapted from www.slc.sevier.org 2003) Is Extended School Year (ESY) :  An exception, not a rule.  Based only on the individual student’s specific unique needs that are critical to his /her overall education progress as determined by the IEP team.  Designed to maintain student mastery of critical skills and objectives represented on the IEP and achieved during the regular school year.  Designed to maintain a reasonable readiness to begin the next year.  Focused on specific critical skills where regression coupled with limited recoupment due to extended time off, may occur.  Based on multi-criteria and not on a single factor.  Considered as a strategy for minimizing the regression of skill, in order to shorten the time required to gain the same level of skill proficiency that the child exited with at the end of the school year. Not Extended School Year (ESY) Is :  A mandated 12-month service for all students with disabilities.  Required to function as a respite care service.  Required or intended to maximize educational opportunities for any student with disabilities.  Necessary to continue instruction on all the previous year’s IEP goals during the ESY period.  Compulsory. Participation in the program is discretionary with the parents, who may choose to refuse the ESY service. There may be personal and family concerns that take precedence over ESY.  Required solely when a child fails to achieve IEP goals and objectives during the school year.  Considered in order to help students with disabilities advance in relation to their peers.  For those students who exhibit random regression solely related to transitional life situation or medical problems which result in degeneration.  Subject to the same LRE environment considerations as during the regular school year as the same LRE options are not available. Additionally, LRE for some students may be home with family members.  A summer recreation program for students with disabilities.  To provide a child with education beyond that which is prescribed in his/her IEP goals and objectives.  For making up for poor attendance during regular school year.  The primary means for credit recovery for classes failed during the regular school year.  Denied due to a lack of evidence. 1 I. Guidelines for IEP Teams WHO RECOMMENDS ESY SERVICES? Both federal and state regulations make it clear that it is the responsibility of the IEP team to determine a child’s need for ESY services. The IEP team membership must include a person knowledgeable about the range of services available, the parent, a general education teacher, a special education teacher and administrator/designee. The IEP team membership may also include related services providers, assessment personnel, and/or the student. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ESY & SUMMER SCHOOL? ESY services are special education and related services that are required by an individual with exceptional needs beyond the regular school year. Such individuals shall have handicaps which are likely to continue indefinitely or for prolonged periods, 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. It is the issues of regression and recoupment that provide a framework upon which to base discussion on the needs of the student. If the student does not require ESY, in some instances the student could be considered for regular summer school or regular summer intervention program services offered within the school district. Summer school classes are not special education, and therefore are not required. Summer school classes are not based upon a child’s individual needs and do not require an IEP. Summer school classes are not required in order for a child to receive FAPE which is in contrast with those services provided in ESY. In addition, a school district can choose not to provide summer school. While summer school usually focuses on opportunities for secondary students to recover credits, summer intervention programs generally focus on the development of skills which students at risk of retention need in order to progress. Given that, summer intervention classes, when available, may very well be appropriate for students with disabilities who are working toward grade level standards. Court cases have referred to the “availability of alternative resources” when considering ESY services. The LEA could consider community programs that are available to students. The LEA must be cautious when identifying services provided by community agencies. There may be no requirement to maintain the student in that program. WHEN SHOULD ESY BE RECOMMENDED? Since the need for ESY is primarily based on an unacceptable regression or recoupment as demonstrated by the student, it is important to understand what might be acceptable for most students. Tilley, Cox, and Staybrook (1986) found that most students experience some regression during summer break. Using standardized tests, they found the rate of regression for regular education students was 4%. Students with 2 mild handicaps, hearing impairments, and serious behavior disorders regressed at approximately the same rate as their regular education peers. For students with moderate to severe handicaps, there was an increased rate of regression and a slower rate of recoupment. According to the study, the areas that were most impacted for those students were language, gross motor, fine motor, and self-help skills. Therefore, it is reasonable for students with moderate to severe challenges to be considered for an ESY program that would concentrate on minimizing regression and recovery time. When considering ESY for any student, the IEP must consider data collected during the previous year(s) to determine the student’s need based on regression and recoupment. This decision should be based on a multi-faceted measurement, although there may be rare instances where the IEP team might consider ESY services based on a single criterion. In either case, the IEP team must decide a child’s eligibility for ESY services based on data collected that reflects his/her regression/recoupment capacity. To help understand this process, the following chart adapted from www.kyrene.org/resource/esy is included: At or before the first progress report of school year  Collect data and re-teach  Compare to Spring data to determine if the student recouped his/her skills from previous year (This data should be the basis of the ESY eligibility discussion at the annual IEP)  Instruction and ongoing data collection  As soon as a student is found eligible for ESY, document the reasons why ESY is recommended on the IEP summary page or on an addendum IEP  Include data supporting the recommendation for ESY  Continue instruction and document progress on progress reports Following the first and second grading period  For new students or any student for whom you were unable to gather regression/recoupment data during the first 8 weeks of school, review data before and after any break from school (e.g. Thanksgiving, Winter or Spring break) to determine if student may have a significant regression/recoupment problem  Use data collected as the basis for ESY eligibility discussion at the annual review IEP or addendum meeting  Data collection will also be used for progress reporting  Re-teaching time should equal the length of the break (1 week break = 1 week re-teaching; retest)  As soon as students are found eligible for ESY, the reasons for eligibility are documented on the IEP summary sheet or addendum  Continue instruction and document progress on progress report Two to three months prior to the end of the school year  Notify district administrator for students eligible for ESY Be sure to include documentation to support decision  Continue to teach and gather data for last quarter/trimester of the school year  If the data indicates the student has a need for ESY and this has not yet been addressed, convene an IEP team meeting If the team determines services are warranted, notify the district administrator as explained above When should ESY data collection occur?  Recommended times for data collection:  At the end of regular school year  At the end of summer program  At the beginning of subsequent school year  Before and after school vacations; if student has been out of school for other reasons  Ongoing collection of information throughout the school year for progress reporting 3 WHY SHOULD ESY BE DOCUMENTED IN A CHILD’S IEP? The ESY services provided must be consistent with the student’s IEP so that the student receives a FAPE. ESY services should concentrate on the areas most impacted by regression and inadequate recoupment. These services may look markedly different in ESY than services provided during the regular school year as determined by the IEP team. The decision is not driven by the setting in which the student is educated during the comprehensive school year. This may also be true for the frequency and/or the duration of services as based on the individual child’s needs. Related services must also be considered as they relate to the child’s benefiting from special education. Therefore, it is very important that the offer of FAPE be clearly documented within the IEP. ESY services are to be considered for students between the ages of three to 21 or students who have not graduated from high school with a diploma. HOW SHOULD ESY ELIGIBILITY BE DETERMINED? The child’s IEP plan should be the foundation for determining the need for ESY. This can be achieved through ongoing assessment and/or review of progress toward goals/objectives. The IEP team meets to review the student’s progress, considering a variety of measurements to provide a baseline that documents the regression and recoupment rate. The IEP team for an initial IEP will not be able to make this determination until after the student has been receiving the special education services and data has been collected. It is recommended that the IEP team reconvene after 3-6 months to review progress data and compare work from before and after break. Similarly, preschool students are another group that the IEP teams need to individually determine the need for ESY based on data collected after the student has participated in the special education program. Since many districts have already implemented multiple measures to assess progress toward standards, the district’s assessments may be applicable to the IEP team determination of need for ESY. The assessment must be based on the IEP goals and/or objectives so that progress can be matched directly to each benchmark outlined and the data can be compared to support evaluation of service effectiveness. The team also needs to determine and document if the student will take the local measures with or without accommodations, with or without modifications, or take alternative measures. The severity of the handicap is a primary consideration in determining eligibility for ESY. Based on the Reusch v. Fountain case, the IEP team should consider the following: student’s age, severity of the disability, presence of medically diagnosed health impairments, attainment of self-sufficiency, and development of an emerging, critical skill that will be lost due to interruption. Other factors to consider are regression rate and recoupment time in relation to normal rates, behavioral and physical problems, curricular areas which would be adversely impacted, and vocational needs. Younger students with medically diagnosed health impairments are more likely to be referred for ESY due to degenerative diseases and/or high absenteeism as a result of 4 the health impairment. The ability to maintain self-sufficiency skills of the more mentally and physically challenged students will continue to be a key issue in ESY eligibility. Once services are determined as necessary based on data collected and regression- recoupment rate, the IEP team must include a description of the services required by the child’s IEP in order to receive FAPE during the provision of ESY. Determination of Need for ESY Services Worksheet: This worksheet assists IEP team members in the ESY decision making process. The case manager begins the worksheet by identifying the student’s name, date of birth, grade, school, district, and Regular School Year Special Education Services. Various people (e.g., special education teacher, general education teacher, related services personnel, parent, administrator) may provide information to complete the multiple criteria considerations in all areas of need. These should include:  Teacher observations  Running records  Benchmark measures  Progress toward goals/objectives  Evidence of regression following break  Evidence of difficulty recouping information following break  Consideration of other options available, and  Other factors With the above information in hand, the IEP team can proceed to answering the series of questions on the ESY Worksheet to assist the team in making a determination of need for ESY. The worksheet is signed, dated, and attached to the student’s IEP. Note: Determination of need for ESY services needs to be completed annually. Eligibility one year does not mean that eligibility continues the next. 5 Student Name: __________________________ DOB: _________ Grade: ____ School: _____________________________ District: ____________________ Regular School Year Special Education Services: ________________________ ESY WORKSHEET Page 1 MULTIPLE CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS IN ALL AREAS OF NEED Teacher Observations: Running Records: Benchmark Measures: Progress Toward Goals/Objectives: Evidence of Regression Following Break: Evidence of Difficulty Recouping Information Following Break: Consideration of Other Options Available: Other Factors/Comments: 6 Student Name: ______________________ DOB: _____________ Grade:_____ ESY WORKSHEET Page 2 Comment on the following considerations for eligibility for ESY. Demonstration of multiple areas of need is required for a team to make a determination of eligibility. Yes No 1. Nature and/or Severity of Disability The student demonstrates a severe disability in one or more areas. Without ESY services, will the nature and/or severity of the student’s disability prohibit the student from receiving benefit from his/her educational program during the subsequent return to school? COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 2. Regression and Recoupment Is there documentation that without ESY services, the child is likely to lose critical life skills or fail to recover these skills within a reasonable time? COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 3. Degree of Progress Without ESY services, will the student’s progress toward IEP goals related to critical life skills be significantly limited in the subsequent return to school? COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 4. Emerging Critical Life Skills/Break Through Opportunities Without ESY services, will the lengthy school break cause significant problems for the student in learning a critical life/school skill? COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 5. Interfering Behavior Without ESY services, will the interruption of programming which addresses interfering behaviors (i.e., stereotypic, ritualistic, aggressive or self injurious behavior) targeted by IEP goal(s) and/or Behavior Support or Intervention Plan be likely to prevent the student from receiving benefit from his/her educational program during the subsequent return to school? COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ 6. Special Circumstances Without ESY services, are there any special circumstances that interfere with the student’s ability to benefit from his/her educational program during the subsequent return to school? COMMENTS: ___________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ IEP TEAM DETERMINATION: Does the team agree that the above-named student is eligible for ESY?  YES  NO If Yes, ESY services(s) is/are required to provide this student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). If it is determined that the student needs ESY services, complete the ESY services section of the IEP to provide a clear offer of FAPE and services to be provided during ESY. Attach this Determination of Need for ESY Services Worksheet to the student’s IEP. Name of Person Completing Form Title Date 7 II. Planning for ESY SAMPLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 2010 SPECIAL EDUCATION 9th-12th Grade Extended School Year Program SAMPLE PARENT INFORMATION SHEET The SAMPLE Unified School District will provide a Special Education Extended School Year Program in accordance with Individualized Education Program (IEP) plans. The purpose of the Extended School Year Program is to minimize regression and recoupment time to meet IEP goals and objectives.  DATES: o Session: June 13, 2010 to July 16, 2010 o No school on June 29 or July 4  TIMES: Hours: 8:00 a.m. -1:15 p.m.  LOCATIONS:  Sample High School for residents of Sample  Sample #2 Hill High School for residents of Sample #2; all SDC and ED-SDC  ATTENDANCE: Students may not miss more than six hours of class per session in order to earn credit. Students must be in attendance the first day of each session to remain enrolled. Students may earn 5 credits for each semester completed with a passing grade.  TRANSPORTATION: Transportation will only be available for those students that have physical or mental impairment that requires specialized transportation per IEP decision. Contact this number if you have questions about transportation: 555-555-5555.  REGISTRATION: Complete the attached registration form.  Return it to ______________________ by May 4, 2010. If you have any questions regarding the Special Education Extended School Year Program, please call the Special Education Office at (666) 666-6666. 8 SAMPLE EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR COVER SHEET (See Reverse Side For Directions) Student Name: Age: Grade: Site: Disability: Services: Special behavioral or discipline considerations: Yes No Behavior Support Plan? Yes No Skill/Goal 1 Pre ESY Performance: Post ESY Performance: Skill/Goal 2 Pre ESY Performance: Post ESY Performance: Skill/Goal 3 Pre ESY Performance: Post ESY Performance: Skill/Goal 4 Pre ESY Performance: Post ESY Performance: Skill/Goal 5 Pre ESY Performance: Post ESY Performance: Skill/Goal 6 Pre ESY Performance: Post ESY Performance: Health/Medical Concerns: Other (Specialized Equipment, Accommodations, important information): Parent Communication method(s)/plan: This form is not intended to be maintained in the Student Record. For Internal Use Only. 9 SAMPLE EXTENDED SCHOOL YEAR COVER SHEET Directions to complete the sample ESY cover sheet: Case Managers collect the student’s most recent complete IEP, any subsequent IEP addendums, most recent multiple measures results, latest report card and progress report to share with the ESY teacher and service providers. Case Managers can also complete an “ESY Cover Sheet” such as the following, which specifies the goals to be targeted for ESY. ESY staff should complete the sections labeled “Post ESY Performance.” Pre-Post assessment measures may be employed to evaluate student’s progress during the ESY instructional program. By working closely with the Student Services personnel, it may be possible for the special education students to take the same evaluation measure as other students, with or without accommodations or modifications, or alternative measure(s) may need to be identified. Selecting the measure(s) and clearly communicating with staff members how and when to administer these are also important considerations in planning for successful programs. 10 III. “Just Prior” Communications To facilitate understanding of everyone involved, there are often “just prior” communications to administrators, teachers, related services staff, and parents. TO TEACHERS AND RELATED SERVICES STAFF Providing clear direction to teachers on expectations for completing pre-post assessments and/or progress reporting is also critical. If formal report cards and/or grades will be reported for credits, this information needs to go to the site administrator, counselor, and/or Registrar. Staff members should also be advised on what to do with the student information once the session is over. For example, Hemet’s letter to teachers included the following statements: ______________________________________________________________________________ At the end of the session, please complete a Progress Report for each student. Send a copy of such home to the parent and place a copy in the binder or folder for each student enrolled. Then, send the binder/folder to the Special Education Office) before you depart for the summer. The Special Education Office will forward these records to the appropriate site so all Case Managers have a copy of their students’ performance for ESY. ______________________________________________________________________ TO PARENTS Since parents typically complete the ESY Registration Form many weeks before the start of the summer program, it may be important to send a “just prior” letter out to them. A sample letter follows: Date: ______________ Parent’s Name: _______________________________ Re: Extended School Year (ESY) for (Student’s Name) As determined by the IEP team on (date of IEP meeting), (student’s name) was recommended to attend ESY for the following services: (List out the services). ESY services are provided beyond the normal school year in accordance with the child’s IEP and at no cost to the parents of the child. These services will be offered at (name of location) from (list dates of ESY). School will be in session from (insert start time) to (insert end time). Your child’s teacher will be (name of teacher) and class will be held in (room number). Please contact ___________________________ at (phone number) if you have any questions regarding ESY services. Sincerely, Name Title 11 APPENDIX Understanding Extended School Year (ESY): The Legal and Practical Aspects FEDERAL REGULATIONS The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (34 CFR Part 300 §300.106) states: (a) General. (1) Each public agency shall ensure that ESY services are available as necessary to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). (2) ESY services must be provided only if a child’s IEP team determines, on an individual basis, in accordance with §300.320-300.324, that the services are necessary for the provision of FAPE to the child. (3) In implementing the requirements of this section, a public agency may not – (i) Limit ESY services to particular categories of disability; Or (ii) Unilaterally limit the type, amount, or duration of those services. (b) Definition. As used in this section, the term extended school year services means special education and related services that – (1) Are provided to a child with a disability – (i) Beyond the normal school year of the public agency (ii) In accordance with the child’s IEP; and (iii) At no cost to the parents of the child; and (2) Meet the standards of the State Education Agency. CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS The California Code of Regulations (CCR §3043) states: 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 IEP team determines the need for such a program and includes extended school year in the IEP pursuant to subsection (f). 12 (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 IEPs 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 during 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 IEP. (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 IEP program to meet a pupil’s unique 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 IEP 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. 13 [Authority cited: Section 56100(a) and (j), Education Code. Reference: Sections 37600, 41976.5 and 56345, Education Code; 34 C.F.R. 300.346] CASE LAW No single criterion can be used as a sole qualifying factor (Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4, 1990). LEAs are required to consider more than just the regression/recoupment analysis and consider other factors relevant in determining ESY. One factor to be considered is the critical stage of developing a skill which has great potential for increasing self-sufficiency. For such skill, if not completely acquired and mastered, it is likely that the current level of acquisition will be lost due to the interruption of summer vacation (Reusch v. Fountain, 1994). LEAs are not required to create programs in order to provide ESY services. An example would be a student who requires an integrated setting. If the LEA does not provide summer services for non- disabled students, the LEA is not required to create a new program (Tuscaloosa County Board of Education, 35 IDELER 172 [SEA AL 2001]). There have been some court cases which help clarify issues of regression/recoupment.  In Cordrey v. Euckert (17EHLR 104 [6th Cir 1990), the court noted that “the school district has no purely custodial duty to provide for handicapped children while similar provision is not made for others. Therefore, begin with the proposition that providing an extended school year is the exception and not the rule…” Therefore, districts will consider all appropriate factors in determining whether the benefits a student has been credited with during the regular school year would be at significant risk for regression if not provided with ESY.  In MM v. School District of Greenville County, (37 IDELR 183, 303 F.3d 523 [4th Cir. 2002]), the court ruled the “ESY services are only necessary to FAPE when the benefits accrued a disabled child during a regular school year will be significantly jeopardized if he is not provided with an educational program during the summer months.”  In SS, JD, SS v. Henricoe County School Board (38 IDELR 261, 326 F.3d 560 [4th Cir. 2003]), the Hearing Officer found that ESY services “were not for the purpose of achieving goals not met during the school year.” 14 33 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix C Sample In-Lieu Contracts SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 34 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM 35 APPENDDRICAEFST Appendix D Study Agreement SiSkiyou County offiCe of eduCation 36 DARPPAEFNTDICES Fiscal crisis & ManageMent assistance teaM