December 10, 2003

Honorable Cecil J. Picard

State Superintendent

Louisiana Department of Education

626 North 4^th^ Street, 12^th^ Floor

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9064

Dear Superintendent Picard:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the Office
of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) recent verification visit to
Louisiana. As I explained in my letter to you of June 18, 2003, OSEP is
conducting verification visits to a number of States as part of our
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) for
ensuring compliance with, and improving performance under, Parts B and C
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We conducted
our visit to Louisiana during the week of September 22, 2003.

The purpose of our verification reviews of States is to determine how
they use their general supervision, State-reported data collection, and
statewide assessment systems to assess and improve State performance and
to protect child and family rights. The purposes of the verification
visits are to: (1) understand how the systems work at the State level;
(2) determine how the State collects and uses data to make monitoring
decisions; and (3) determine the extent to which the State's systems are
designed to identify and correct noncompliance.

As part of the verification visit to the Louisiana Department of
Education (LDE), OSEP staff met with Ms.Virginia Beridon (the State's
Director of Special Education), and members of LDE's staff who are
responsible for: (1) the oversight of general supervision activities
(including monitoring, mediation, complaint resolution, and impartial
due process hearings); (2) the collection and analysis of State-reported
data; and (3) ensuring participation in, and the reporting of student
performance on, State-wide assessments. Prior to and during the visit,
OSEP staff reviewed a number of documents[^1], including the following:
(1) Louisiana's Part B State Improvement Plan; (2) the State's Biennial
Performance Report for grant years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001; (3)
Louisiana's State Improvement Grant (SIG) application; (4) LDE's 2003
LANSER (Louisiana Network of Special Education Records) Users' Guide;
(5) a draft of LDE's 2003-2004 Focused Monitoring Manual; (6) the State
Assessment Manual for Special Populations; (7) selected LDE monitoring
files for school districts, including monitoring reports and corrective
action documents; (8) LDE's written response to the overarching
questions around which OSEP is focusing its verification reviews; and
(9) LDE tracking logs for complaints and due process hearings.

OSEP also conducted a conference call on September 2, 2003 with a number
of stakeholders to hear their perspectives on the strengths and
weaknesses of the State's systems for general supervision, data
collection, and, for Part B, State-wide Assessment. Ms. Beridon
participated in the call and assisted us by inviting the participants.

The information that Ms. Beridon and her staff provided during the OSEP
visit, together with all of the information that OSEP staff reviewed in
preparation for the visit, greatly enhanced our understanding of LDE's
systems for general supervision, data collection and reporting, and
State-wide assessment.

# General Supervision

In looking at the State's general supervision system, OSEP collected
information regarding a number of elements, including whether the State:
(1) has identified any barriers (e.g., limitations on authority,
insufficient staff or other resources, etc.) that impede the State's
ability to identify and correct noncompliance; (2) has systemic,
data-based, and reasonable approaches to identifying and correcting
noncompliance; (3) utilizes guidance, technical assistance, follow-up,
and---if necessary---sanctions, to ensure timely correction of
noncompliance; (4) has dispute resolution systems that ensure the timely
resolution of complaints and due process hearings; and (5) has
mechanisms in place to compile and integrate data across systems (e.g.,
618 State-reported data, due process hearings, complaints, mediation,
large-scale assessments, previous monitoring results, etc.) to identify
systemic issues and problems.

LDE's Division of Special Populations (DSP) reports current staffing at
35 positions, including several staff whose job responsibilities include
activities related to monitoring. In addition, LDE contracts
independently with six State monitors that serve as team leaders for
onsite monitoring visits. The monitoring teams also include local
administrators (peers) from other school districts and parents.

OSEP conducted a targeted monitoring visit to Louisiana in 2000. As set
forth in OSEP's 2001 Louisiana Monitoring Report, OSEP found that LDE
was not effectively ensuring that all of the noncompliance that it
identified was fully corrected. LDE is in the process of implementing
the Improvement Plan that OSEP approved in February 2003, and it must
provide documentation to OSEP by March 15 that it has corrected all of
the noncompliance identified in OSEP's 2001 report, including the
above-described general supervision finding regarding the correction of
noncompliance. OSEP believes that the improvements LDE has made to its
monitoring system are reasonably calculated to enable LDE to ensure the
correction of all of the noncompliance that OSEP identified in its 2001
report, and that the system is a reasonable approach to the
identification and correction of noncompliance. However, before
reviewing the documentation that LDE will submit regarding the impact of
the improvement strategies that it is implementing, OSEP cannot
determine whether the State has corrected the above-described deficiency
and is fully effective in correcting noncompliance.

LDE staff explained to OSEP that the State uses a non-cyclical,
data-driven process to monitor the State's 68 local educational agencies
(LEAs), State-operated programs, and two charter schools (chartered by
the State Board of Education). As they further informed OSEP (and
demonstrated with their monitoring manuals), LDE has classified LEAs
into four cohorts based on total student population. Each year, LDE
works with a group of stakeholders to select three indicators that it
will use to rank LEAs. Then, for each of the three indicators, LDE ranks
LEAs within each of the four population cohorts, using performance data
from the previous year. LDE identifies the lowest ranked LEA in each of
the four cohorts for each indicator as a "Focus" LEA, and conducts a
focused data collection visit to the LEA. LDE identifies the highest
ranked LEA in each of the four cohorts for each indicator as an
exemplary LEA; LDE conducts an on-site data collection visit to the
single highest ranked LEA for each indicator. LDE also conducts an
on-site data collection visit to an additional eight LEAs that it
selects randomly each year. In addition, LDE conducts a follow-up data
collection visit to all LEAs with identified noncompliance to ensure
completion of corrective actions within one year.

LDE staff explained that each LEA must submit a self-review with its
local application for Part B funds that addresses all compliance areas
in Part B. If the LEA identifies noncompliance, it must also include
with its application for funds a corrective action plan, with timelines
and evidence of change, to address the noncompliance. OSEP reviewed a
number of LDE monitoring files and found that, while there is a
significant range in the depth and candor of self-reviews, some LEAs
have self-identified a number of areas of noncompliance. An LEA may
apply for a State grant to help support implementation of its corrective
action plan and systemic change. In order to receive such funds, an LEA
must show that it is expending all of its Part B funds and needs the
additional funds in order to implement the plan. Although LDE staff
reported that there is follow up with LEAs that identify noncompliance
through the self-review process, they further indicated to OSEP staff
that unless those LEAs are selected for a focused or random visit, there
is limited follow up to ensure correction.

Bulletin 1922, §107 of LDE's regulations, includes specific language
regarding monitoring requirements and sanctions. The Bulletin requires
LDE to monitor all public agencies within the State and to take actions
necessary to ensure compliance. The Bulletin further requires each LEA
with non-compliance findings to write a corrective action plan in
collaboration with LDE. As set forth in §107, the LEA must address the
activities the LEA will implement to correct, within one year, the areas
of non-compliance identified in the on-site visit. LDE further informed
OSEP that DSP tracks an LEA's progress toward completing the activities
in its corrective action plan, with follow-up visits and written reports
as necessary. OSEP learned from its review of the monitoring file for
one LEA, that LDE had required that LEA to provide DSP with a status
report on correction of noncompliance every 90 days. According to
documentation reviewed in other LDE monitoring files, LDE provided LEAs
with intensive follow-up and required them to submit specific
documentation showing that correction had been achieved.

LDE informed OSEP that it implements sanctions and interventions on a
continuum, from collaborative meetings to redesigning the corrective
action plan, to partial release or withholding of Part B funds. LDE
staff reported to OSEP that the State is currently using graduated
sanctions in four LEAs, with one additional LEA likely to be added this
year.

On March 10, 2003, LDE transferred responsibility for the management of
complaints, mediation, and due process hearings from the Division of
Special Populations (DSP) to the Legal Division. LDE explained that this
shift in responsibility was part of a move to centralize, in one LDE
office, responsibility for all dispute resolution systems.

OSEP reviewed the special education complaint log that DSP maintained
for the period of July 2, 2002 to March 10, 2003, as well as the log
that the Legal Division maintained for the period beginning March 10,
2003. Based on its review of these complaint logs and its interview with
the DSP and Legal Division staff responsible for resolving complaints,
OSEP determined that LDE issues written decisions on Part B complaints
within 60 calendar days from its receipt of the complaint, unless the
timeline is extended due to exceptional circumstances that exist with
regard to a particular complaint, consistent with 34 CFR §300.661(a) and
(b)(1). LDE staff informed OSEP that, as part of each on-site monitoring
visit, staff follow-up to ensure that the LEA has effectively
implemented any complaint decisions.

On July 1, 2003, Louisiana moved from a two-tiered to a one-tiered
system for due process hearings. OSEP reviewed the special education
hearing log that DSP maintained for the period of July 2, 2002 to March
10, 2003, as well as the log that the Legal Division maintained for the
period beginning March 10, 2003. OSEP learned, through its review of
LDE's due process hearing log and its interview with the staff that are
responsible for tracking hearing timelines, that hearing officers issue
decisions on due process hearings within 45 calendar days from LDE's
receipt of the hearing request, unless the hearing officer grants a
specific extension of the timeline at the request of a party, consistent
with 34 CFR §300.511(a) and (c). LDE staff informed OSEP that, as part
of each on-site monitoring visit, staff follow-up to ensure that the LEA
has effectively implemented any hearing decisions.

As described above, LDE uses data from several different sources to help
focus its general supervision efforts State-wide. In addition, OSEP
learned from its review of LDE's improvement planning documents and its
interview with LDE staff, that LDE uses data from its monitoring
findings, its 618 data, its assessment data, and other similar data to
inform their improvement planning process and to refine their monitoring
procedures. Now that LDE's legal office is responsible for oversight of
special education hearings and complaints, it will be very important
that LDE develop and implement a process for ensuring that the State
Director of Special Education is fully informed regarding the issues
raised in complaints and hearings and the decisions that hearing
officers and LDE, respectively, issue.

*Collection of Data under Section 618 of the IDEA*

In looking at the State's system for data collection and reporting, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) provides clear guidance and ongoing training to local
programs/public agencies regarding requirements and procedures for
reporting data under section 618 of the IDEA; (2) implements procedures
to determine whether the individuals who enter and report data at the
local and/or regional level do so accurately and in a manner that is
consistent with the State's procedures, OSEP guidance, and section 618;
(3) implements procedures for identifying anomalies in data that are
reported, and correcting any inaccuracies; and (4) has identified any
barriers, (e.g., limitations on authority, sufficient staff or other
resources, etc.) that impede the state's ability to accurately, reliably
and validly collect and report data under section 618.[^2]

In a presentation to OSEP staff, LDE reported that a full time data
manager, a full time assistant, and a technical team that includes
additional programmers and analysts, provide support and oversight for
the 618 data collection system. These individuals are housed within
LDE's office of Planning, Analysis, and Information Resources. LANSER,
the State's database for students with disabilities, has been in use
since 1984. LDE has built into the LANSER software numerous data error
checks to ensure validity and reliability of the data. LDE performs
monthly compliance checks and generates system error reports to identify
anomalies in all student data fields. LDE staff reported to OSEP that
future plans include changing the software platform to make LANSER
compatible with SIS (the student information system used for all
students). During the 2002-2003 school year, there were no data issues
reported by WESTAT regarding Louisiana's Part B 618 data.

LDE reported that, through LANSER, it collects all student data
electronically. In addition to the data that Section 618 requires LDE to
report, LDE also collects data regarding timelines and other
State-required data. LDE further reported that, in order to track
compliance on two long-standing consent decrees, it generates monthly
reports on extended school year program services and timelines for
initial evaluations and reevaluations. LDE provides these reports to all
LEAs, and initiates monitoring activities for those LEAs that are
experiencing noncompliance in either area.

LDE staff explained that it does not collect 618 data relating to
personnel through the LANSER electronic platform; rather LEAs submit
these data by paper. LDE intends to automate the process of submitting
personnel information in the future, with a spreadsheet or within the
LANSER system. LEAs began to submit discipline data electronically as of
the 2002--2003 school year. LDE reported that it provides training and
ongoing support to LEA personnel responsible for 618 data through
workshops, yearly spring conferences, telephone and e-mail support, and
scheduled site visits for direct training and assistance. In addition,
LDE provides e-mail updates to LEA system users and supervisors,
including lists of timelines and "dates to remember."

LDE staff reported to OSEP that in general they have a high level of
confidence in the accuracy of the data reported by the State's student
data system, but that they are less confident in the accuracy of the
data regarding discipline and personnel. Through discussions with OSEP
staff regarding this concern, however, LDE staff did not identify any
barriers that would impede the State's ability to collect this data
accurately. In order to ensure that the State can meet its
responsibility to submit accurate data under section 618 of IDEA, within
60 days from the date of this letter, LDE must submit to OSEP its plan
for ensuring that the discipline and personnel data provided as part of
the next required submission of section 618 data are accurate.

*State-wide Assessment*

In looking at the State's system for State-wide assessment, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) establishes procedures for State-wide assessments that
meet the participation, alternate assessment, and reporting requirements
of Part B, including ensuring the participation of all students,
including students with disabilities, and the provision of appropriate
accommodations; (2) provides clear guidance and training to public
agencies regarding those procedures and requirements; (3) monitors local
implementation of those procedures and requirements; and (4) reports on
the performance of children with disabilities on those assessments, in a
manner consistent with those requirements. In order to better understand
your system for State-wide assessment, OSEP also discussed with your
staff how the alternate assessment is aligned with grade-appropriate
content standards.

OSEP has determined, through its review of the State's written
procedures for State-wide assessments and the States' reports to the
public and the Secretary on the participation and performance of
children with disabilities on such assessments, that those procedures,
as written, and those reports are consistent with Part B requirements.
OSEP cannot, however, without also collecting data at the local level,
determine whether all public agencies in the State implement the State's
procedures in a manner that is consistent with Part B.

As explained by LDE staff and confirmed by written materials posted on
LDE's website, Louisiana requires all students in grades 3 through 11 to
participate in the Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP). If
the child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team determines that
a child will not participate in the general State-wide assessment, then
the child participates in the Louisiana Alternate Assessment (LAA). One
of the three Priority Goals on the State's Improvement Plan is to
improve participation and performance in the assessment system for
students with disabilities. LDE reported to OSEP that, during the 2002
-- 2003 school year, approximately 80% of the State's students with
disabilities in grades 3 through 11 took the general assessment and the
remaining 20% participated in the LAA or the LAA-B.[^3]

LDE staff reported that students cannot be exempted from the assessment
system in Louisiana, and that all students, including those in
State-operated schools and juvenile correctional facilities, participate
in the system and LDE reports their scores. At this time, there are no
students with disabilities in Louisiana that are publicly placed in
private or residential placements.

The State has developed guidelines for LEAs to use in selecting test
accommodations for students with disabilities, as well as criteria for
IEP teams to use in determining which students should take the alternate
assessment. LDE has posted this information on its website, and also
addresses these guidelines in training activities around the State. LDE
reported that it has provided significant training over the last two
years regarding access to the general curriculum and participation in
the State's general assessments, and on the LEAP Alternate Assessment.
LDE reported close coordination between DSP and LDE's Accountability
Office in these training efforts, resulting in improved school
performance for students with disabilities.

Louisiana has high stakes testing policies for students in grades four
and eight, and for exiting high school. Promotion to the fifth and ninth
grades is contingent upon LEAP performance, and students must
demonstrate competency on the GEE 21 in order to receive a high school
diploma.

LDE reports on the assessment performance of all children, including
children with disabilities who participate in the general or alternate
assessment, through a variety of local, district, and State level
reports. Most of the reported data are available on the LDE website
through accountability report cards. LDE also includes participation and
performance on State-wide assessments in the district profiles, which it
posts each year on the LDE website. All parents receive a copy of their
child's Individual Student Report showing performance in the assessment
system. In addition, parent brochures and information on the LDE website
are available for parents.

LDE staff reported to OSEP that DSP's focused monitoring procedures
include specific activities to ensure compliance with Part B assessment
requirements. LDE requires a corrective action plan from an LEA if LDE
identifies noncompliance through a data review or an onsite visit.

*Conclusion*

As noted above, the State must submit to OSEP, no later that 60 days
from the date of this letter, its plan for ensuring that district level
personnel and discipline data provided as part of the next required
submission of section 618 data are accurate. We also request that you
include information in the next submission to OSEP on the Louisiana
State Improvement Plan, further detail regarding how LDE will revise its
process for ensuring correction in those districts with noncompliance
identified through the self-review process.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit. We look forward to our continued collaboration with
Louisiana to support your work to improve results for children with
disabilities and their families.

Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard for

Stephanie Smith Lee

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Ms. Virginia Beridon

[^1]: Documents reviewed as part of the verification process were not
    reviewed for legal sufficiency but rather to inform OSEP's
    understanding of your State's systems.

[^2]: Prior to July 2003, LDE was the Lead Agency for Part C early
    intervention programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities.
    During the verification visit, OSEP staff interviewed LDE regarding
    collection and reporting of Part C data on settings, services, and
    exiting. (OSEP's findings on the State's reporting of Part C data
    are addressed in OSEP's letter to the new Lead Agency regarding the
    verification visit.)

[^3]: Prior to the 2003-2004 school year, some students with
    disabilities participated in the "LAA-B," which was an out-of-level
    assessment administration of one of the general assessments. The
    State eliminated the use of all out-level testing, effective with
    the 2003-2004 school year.