Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 1 of 60

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

)

P.B., by and through his next friend, '

)

Cassandra Berry; D.B., by and through his )

next friend, Leskisher Luckett; N.F., by and )

through his next friend, Kelly Fischer; A.J. )

by and through his next friend, Rosezina )

Jefferson; T.J., by andthrough his next

)

friend, Jeanette Johnson; K.J., by and

)

through his next friend, Kimberly Jones; )

M.M., by and through his next friend,

)

Nancy McSween; L.M., by and through his )

next friend, Shelton Joseph; D.T., by and )

through his next friend, Chanell Thomas; .)

and L.W., by and through his next friend, )

Cynthia Parker, on behalf ofthemselves and)

all similarly situated students,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

PAUL PASTOREK, Louisiana State

)

Superintendent of Education in his official )

capacity; LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT )

OF EDUCATION; and LOUISIANA

)

BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND

)

SECONDARY EDUCATION,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

-------------------------)

Case No. COMPLAINT.;CLASS ACTION

'COMPLAINT 1. This is a class action to vindicate the rights of all New Orleans students with disabilities filed pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.c. § 1400 et seq.; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section
1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 2 of 60
504"),29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title II"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101' et seq.l
2. In 1975, Congress enacted what is now called the IDEA to protect the educational rights of the more than eight million students with disabilities in the United States whose educational needs were neglected. Section 1 of Act Nov. 29, 1975, P.L. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773. This statute focuses on correcting two evils: the exclusion of children with disabilities from public schooling and the provision of inadequate education to those children already admitted to the classroom. Pursuant to the IDEA, state educational agencies-like the Defendants- are required to ensure that schools and school districts have policies and practices in place to ensure the pro-active identification of students with disabilities. This is ktiownas the "child find" mandate. State educational agencies must also ensure that each child with a disability receives an individualized education plan ("IEP") that is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. IEPs must include the provision of any related services necessary to ensure that a child makes academic progress. Related services include counseling, speech therapy and other similar supports. For some students, IEPs must provide for transitional services to help aide in the transition from student to productive adult. The IDEA also includes numerous procedural safeguards to protect children from school discipline -practices that punish them for behaviors related to their disabilities.
1 Section S04 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title IT of the ADA prohibit entities from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their disabilities, and both laws' anti-discrimination mandates use nearly identical language. See Section S04 at 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) (1973) and Title IT at 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1990). The only meaningful difference between Section S04 and Title II is that Section S04applies only to federally-funded recipients. Hence, when applying both laws in the context of state actors receiving federal funding for the provision of elementary and secondary education, the Fifth Circuit has concluded that the rights and remedies under both statutes are the same, and that both statutes may be used interchangeably. Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272,287-88 (Sth Cir. 200S).
2

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 3 of 60
3. Students with disabilities are also protected by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act which prohibits entities that receive federal funding-including state Departments of Education-from discriminating against people on the basis of their disabilities. Section 504 mandates that state educational agencies provide students with disabilities with access to the same educational opportunities that are provided to non-disabled students.
4. Defendants State Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek, the Louisiana Department of Education ("LDE") and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education ("BESE") bear ultimate responsibility for ensuring that every school district and every school within the state of Louisiana complies with these federal laws. The Defendants have abdicated this responsibility and as a result, the rights of New Orleans public school students with disabilities are violated in four general ways:
5. First, students with disabilities are denied admission to public schools on the basis of their disabilities because the Defendants have failed to ensure that public schools offer disabled students the same variety of educational programs and services as are available to nondisabled children. These practices constitute nothing less than disability discrimination.
6. Second, students with disabilities are denied the protections and services to which they are entitled under federal law because the Defendants have not promulgated and enforced a child find policy that would (1) apply unifonnly throughout all New Orleans Public schools and (2) ensure that all students who are in need of special education services are identified, located and evaluated in a timely fashion.
7. Third, students with disabilities are denied educational opportunities that confer a meaningful educational benefit because Defendants have failed to ensure that IEPs are
3

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 4 of 60
developed, reviewed and revised for each New Orleans public school student with a disability, and have failed to provide access to related and transition services.
8. Fourth, students with disabilities are punished for manifestations of their disabilities and unlawfully excluded from educational programs and benefits because the Defendants have failed to implement policies, procedures and practices related to school discipline that protect these students' federal procedural safeguards and shield them from discrimination on the basis of their disability.
9. The Plaintiffs are ten students who represent a class of approximately 4,500 New Orleans students with disabilities. On behalf of themselves and a class of all similarly situated New Orleans students with disabilities, Plaintiffs seek declaratory, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring Superintendent Pastorek, LDE, and BESE to cease their unlawful policies, procedures, customs, patterns, and/or practices that deprive Plaintiffs and all similarly situated children with disabilities their statutory rights to (1) receive a free appropriate public education and (2) be free from discrimination on the basis oftheir disabilities.
JURISDICTION 10. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(A) and 29 U.S.C. § 794 which provide the district courts of the United States with jurisdiction over any action pursuant to the above section(s) without regard to the amount in controversy, and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based upon the federal questions raised herein. 11. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have no adequate remedy at law and have -suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless defendants, including their agents, representatives and/or employees, are restrained from continuing its unlawful practices.
4

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 5 of 60
VENUE 12. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred" in this district. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
PARTIES A. REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS
13. PlaintiffP.B. is a 15-year-old resident of the city of New Orleans, who loves to play football, listen to music and spend time with his grandmother. He is not currently enrolled in school, but he began the 2010-11 school year enrolled in the seventh grade at Pierre A. Capdau Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent local education agency ("LEA"). P.B. has a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and was identified as a student with a disability under Section 504. He brings this action by and through his mother, Cassandra Berry.
14. PlaintiffD.B. is a nine-year-old resident of the city of New Orleans, who loves to draw, dance, and learn about history. He is currently enrolled in the fourth grade at Langston Hughes Academy Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. D.B. has been identified as a student with an emotional disability under IDEA. He brings this action by and through his mother, Leskisher Luckett.
15. PlaintiffN.F. is a nine-year-old resident of New Orleans, currently enrolled in the fourth grade at Lafayette Academy Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. During the 2009-10 school year, he was enrolled at Mary D. Coghill Elementary School, a traditional public school in the state-run Recovery School District ("RSD"). N.F. loves Dr. Seuss
5

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 6 of 60
books and he likes to sing and swim. He has been identified as a student with multiple disabilities under IDEA: autism and total visual impairmentlblindness~ N.F. brings this action by and through his mother, Kelly Fischer.
16. Plaintiff A.J. is a 10-year-old resident of New Orleans, who likes to swim, listen to music, play video games, and take care of his baby brother. He is currently enrolled in the fifth grade at Lagniappe Academy Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. During the 2009-10 school year, A.J. was enrolled at Albert Wicker Elementary School, a traditional public school in the RSD. A.J., has a diagnosis of ADHD, and was identified as a student with a disability under Section 504. He brings this action by and through his mother, Rosezina Jefferson.
17. Plaintiff TJ. is a 13-year-old resident of New Orleans, who enjoys playing football and basketball and who loves spending time working around the house with his grandfather. He is currently not enrolled in school because his mother is unable to locate a school placement for him in New Orleans. During the 2009-10 school year, T.J. was enrolled in the fourth grade at Fannie C. Williams Elementary School, a traditional public school in the RSD. T.J. has a diagnosis of dyslexia and ADHD, but he has not yet been identified as a student with a disability. He brings this action by and through his mother, Jeanette Johnson.
18. PlaintiffK.J. is a 14-year-old resident of New Orleans, currently enrolled in the eighth grade at Samuel J, Green Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. He loves sports, playing video games and spending time with his family. K.J. was identified asa student with a specific learning disability and ADHD under Section 504. He brings this action by and through his mother, Kimberly Jones.
6

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 7 of 60
19. PlaintiffM.M. is a seven-year-old resident of New Orleans, currently enrolled in the second grade at Benjamin Banneker Elementary School, a traditional public school in the RSD. He has been identified as a student with multiple disabilities under IDEA, including acute cognitive delays and severe seizure disorder. M.M. is just learning to walk and enjoys accompanying his mother to their local fish market. He brings this action by and through his mother, Nancy McSween.
20. Plaintiff L.M. is a 15-year-old resident of New Orleans, who likes to play basketball, use the computer, and help out around the house. He hopes to join the United States Anny after high school. L.M. is currently enrolled in the ninth grade at Sci Academy Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. Duringthe 2009-10 school year, he was enrolled at Joseph A. Craig Elementary School, Dr. Charles R. Drew Elementary School, Douglass Eighth Grade Academy, and Hope Academy, all state-run public schools in the RSD. L.M. has been identified as a student with an emotional disability under IDEA. He brings this action by and through his great uncle and legal guardian, Shelton Joseph.
.21. Plaintiff D.T. is a seven-year-old resident of New Orleans, currently enrolled in the second grade at Fannie C. Williams .Elementary School, a traditional public school in the RSD. During the 2009-10 school year, he was enrolled· at Langston Hughes Academy Charter School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. D.T. loves to take karate, play video games, and go to the park with his mother and grandmother. He has been identified as a student with an emotional and behavioral disability under Section 504. He brings this action by and through his mother, Chanell Thomas.
22. PlaintiffL.W. is a 16-year-old resident of New Orleans, who likes to fix broken things and help his grandmother out around the house. He hopes to be a policeman after
7

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 8 of 60
completing school. L.W. is currently enrolled in the ninth grade at KIPP Renaissance High School, a charter school operating as an independent LEA. During the 2009-10 school year, he attended KIPP Believe College Prep, a charter school operating as an independent LEA, and Douglass Eighth Grade Academy, a traditional public school in the RSD. L.W. has been identified as a student with Other Health Impairments (ORI) under IDEA. He brings this action by and through his grandmother and legal guardian, Cynthia Parker. B. DEFENDANTS
23. Defendant PAUL PASTOREK is the Louisiana State Superintendent of Education. As State Superintendent, Defendant Pastorek serves as the executive head and chief administrative officer of the Louisiana Department of Education, and has responsibility for implementing educational policies for the administration, control, and operation of the functions, programs, and affairs of the Department. La. R.S; § 36:644. The State Superintendent also executes and implements those educational policies and programs under the supervision and control of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education and the laws affecting schools under the jurisdiction oftheBoard. La. R.S. § 17:22. Defendant Pastorek is sued here in his official capacity.
24. Defendant LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ("LDE") is responsible for providing public education for the people of the state of Louisiana and is the agency through which the state administers the functions of the superintendent of education and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. La. R.S. § 36:642(B). LDE is also responsible for performing the state's responsibilities relating to the education of exceptional children, including the administration ,and distribution of all federal funds received, in accordance with the law. La. R.S. § 36:649. See also La. R.S. § 17:24. As the state educational
8

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 9 of 60
agency ("SEA"), LDE has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all public schools in the state of Louisiana comply with the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(A). PUrsuant to La. R.S. § 36:642, LDE has the authority to sue and be sued. LDE is sued here in its official capacity.
25. Defendant LOUISIANA BOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ("BESE") is responsible for the oversight of the Louisiana Department of Education and the Louisiana Recovery School District. BESE oversight responsibilities include the approval and adoption of rules, by-laws, and regulations for the government of the public elementary and secondary schools and other public schools and programs under its jurisdiction, which shall not be inconsistent with state and federal law, pursuant to La. R.S. § 17:7. Pursuant to La. R.S. § 17:10.5, BESE functions as the local school board for the RSD's traditional public schools, promUlgating and enforcing local policy and supervising the Superintendent. Pursuant to La. R.S. § 17.6, BESE has the authority to sue and be sued. BESE is sued here in its official capacity only.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 26. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other present and future New Orleans students who are identified or who should be identified as students with disabilities pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 .et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title II"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. 27. The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class members include the approximately 4;500 New Orleans students with disabilities (both identified and unidentified) who are currently enrolled in public school and the countless
9

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 10 of 60
students with disabilities who will enroll in the future. Given the number of youth who are members of the proposed class, joinder is not just impracticable - it is impossible.
28. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. These common questions include whether the Defendants have violated the IDEA, Section 504, and Title II.
29. The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the proposed class in that the named Plaintiffs, like other members of the class, allege-that LDE and BESE have failed to comply with their obligations pursuant to the IDEA, Section 504, and Title II. As a result, the Defendants fail to ensure that class members are properly evaluated and identified for special education services. Class members are also denied a free appropriate public education, meaning they do not receive individualized education plans (IEPs) that provide appropriate related and transitional services and that are reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. Furthermore, the Defendants fail to protect class members with the required procedural safeguards related to school discipline. Finally, the Defendants fail to ensure class members are not discriminated against on the basis of disability and are provided access and accommodations to the same programs and services as equally as they are available to non-disabled students.
30. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. The Plaintiffs possess a strong personal interest in the subject matter of the lawsuit, and are represented by experienced counsel with expertise in special education and disability law, class actions, and civil rights litigation.
31. Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class. LDE and BESE ~ave failed to comply with their general supervisory responsibilities by failing to appropriately monitor, identify, and compel the New Orleans public schools to eliminate the numerous systemic violations of IDEA, Section 504 and Title II. Defendants'
10

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 11 of 60
customs, policies, procedures, patterns and/or practices have a similar impact upon the plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. Correction of these violations will benefit all class members. The relief sought herein applies to the class as a whole and not merely to any particular individual or group of individuals.
NEW ORLEANS SCHOOL GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK 32. As a result of the unique structure of public education in New Orleans, students with disabilities face insurmountable challenges when attempting to access educational services. Under federal law, special education services are administered by a local education agency ("LEA")-traditionallya single school district which serves as the centralized point of authority and accountability for schools. As a result of the education reforms th,:tt occurred in the city during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, no such single entity exists in New Orleans. 33. Immediately following Hurricane Katrina, the state-operated Recovery School District ("RSD"), a division of the LDE that is overseen by BESE, became responsible for operating low performing schools that were previously run by the Orleans Parish School Board ("OPSB"). Under this new structure, OPSB retained control of 16 schools including 12 charter schools. RSD gained control of all other schools. Once a public school is transferred to the RSD, it can beoperated by a private entity known as a charter school. 34. Currently, the RSD directly operates 23 schools and has overseen the chartering of 49 schools. Each of these 49 schools operates as its own LEA. There are 51 distinct LEAs that operate within the city of New Orleans. Over 70 percent ofNew Orleans public students attend charter schools-more than anywhere else in the country. Stacy Teicher Khadaroo, After Katrina, How Charter Schools Helped Recast New Orleans Education, Christian Science Monitor, August 29,2010, available at
11

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 12 of 60
http://www.csmonitor.comiUSAIEducationJ20 10/0829/After-Katrina-how-charter-schoolshelped-recast-New-Orleans-education.
35. For purposes of administering special education services, each of these charter schools functions as an independent school district or LEA. By functioning as an LEA, a single charter school assumes the responsibility of an entire school district. Under federal law, the Defendants must ensure that each charter school has the appropriate resources, policies and procedures to provide the full panoply of special education services from evaluations to related services and supports.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK A. IDEA REQUIREMENTS
36. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), requires that a state provide a free appropriate public education to all its students with disabilities including children with disabilities who have been suspended or expelled from school. See 20 U.S;C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.101. The IDEA establishes a system ofprocedural and substantive requirements to which the state educational agency must adhere to ensure that each child with a disability receives a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq.
37. The state educational agency has the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that all public schools in the state of Louisiana comply with the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(11)(A). Accordingly, LDE and BESE are responsible for implementing policies and procedures to ensure that LEAs are monitored for implementation and compliance with the IDEA. 34 C.F.R. § 300.600. Ifthe state determines that an LEA is not in compliance, the IDEA requires the state to take necessary action to enforce compliance. 34 C.F.R. § 300.608.
12

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 13 of 60
38. In addition to their general supervisory responsibilities, LDE and BESE have the responsibility to ensure implementation and compliance with specific provisions of the IDEA. First, they must ensure that each LEA take steps to make certain that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to non-disabled children in the area served. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.110. They must also have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that all children with disabilities, who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111. LDEand BESE must ensure that an individualized education program ("IEP") is developed, reviewed and revised for each child with a disability to enable the child to receive a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(4); 34 C.F.R. § 300.112. Finally, they must ensure that children with disabilities are afforded the procedural safeguards described by IDEA when disciplinary action is contemplated. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 300.150. IDEA requires the state to examine LEA data to determine if
-
significant discrepancies exist in the rates of suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities. If discrepancies exist, the state must review and revise its policies, procedures and practices relating to the development of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards, to ensure that the state is in compliance with the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(22); 34 C.F.R. § 300.170.
39. As the SEA, Defendants LDE and BESE are jointly responsible for overseeing, monitoring, and enforcing the coordination and provision of special education services in New Orleans. This obligation applies to students who attend all public schools that operate in the city of New Orleans, including the 49 charter schools that function as 49 independent school districts,
13

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 14 of 60
the 23 schools operated by the state under the Recovery School District (RSD) and the 12 charter schools and 4 publicly run schools operated by the Orleans Parish School Board. B. SECTION 504 AND TITLE II REQUIREMENTS
40. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit public entities from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Pursuant to Section 504 and Title II, public schools are prohibited from excluding students with disabilities from participating in or receiving the benefits of a school's programs, activities, and benefits. To the extent a student is excluded from programs, activities, and benefits, it constitutes disability discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). Accordingly, each student with a disability must be provided access to all programs provided to non-disabled students. 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 29 U.S.C. § 794; 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21. Furthermore, Section 504 and Title II require that each disabled student be provided reasonable accommodations and modifications designed to provide meaningful access to educational benefits, or as necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability 34 C.F;R. § 104.33; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
41. Section 504 and Title II's nearly identical anti-discrimination mandates apply to qualified individuals with disabilities. In the elementary and secondary education context, the tenn "qualified individual" refers to
a handicapped person (i) of an age during which nonhandicapped persons are provided [public preschool elementary, secondary, or adult educational services] (ii) of any age during which it is mandatory under state law to provide such services to handicapped persons, or (iii) to whom a state is required to provide a free appropriate public education under [the IDEA]. 34 C.F.R. § 104.3(l)(2) (1980). 42. Furthermore, Section 504 and Title II define "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more ofthe major life activities." 42 U.S.C. §
14

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 15 of 60
12102(2) (2008); 29 U.S.c. § 705 (1973). Qualified students with disabilities can demonstrate
that their state education agency discriminated against them pursuant to the following analysis:
1. The plaintiff-student is disabled, according to the common definition; 2. The plaintiff-student is otherwise qualified to participate in school activities; 3. State education agency receives federal financial assistance; and 4. The plaintiff-student was excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subject
to discrimination at the school.
43. Section 504 also mandates that each child with a disability in New Orleans
receive a free appropriate public education including the provision of regular or special
education and supplementary aids and services to meet the needs of the student. 20 U.S.C. §
794; 34 C.F.R. § 104.33.
44. The United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has
routinely determined that, as recipients of federal financial assistance, the state educational
agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring the provision of a free appropriate public education
to each qualified person in its jurisdiction under Section 504. Individuals with Disabilities Educ.
L. Rep., 352:627-631, 628-29, OCR Ruling: Complaint No. 03-88-1024 West Virginia
Department ofEducation.
C. STATE REQUIREMENTS
45. LDE and BESE's obligations to students with disabilities under IDEA, Section
504 and Title II are reinforced in Louisiana state law. Pursuant to R.S. § 17:1941, the state
educational agency has a duty to
... provide a free appropriate public education to every child with an exceptionality who is a resident therein. Out of recognition that included within any population one will find some children who require special education and related services, it is the purpose of this Chapter to provide for a flexible and uniform system of special education for all children requiring such services; to provide a flexible and nondiscriminatory system for identifying and evaluating the individual needs of the child; to determine the appropriateness of the special education services; to conduct a periodic evaluation of the
15

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 16 of 60
services and their benefit to the child; to prevent denials of equal educational opportunities on the basis of national origin, sex, economic status, race, religion, and physical or mental disabilities/impainnents or other exceptionalities in the provision of free appropriate public education; and to provide such special education services herein described and related services in the least restrictive educational placements.
SYSTEMIC ALLEGATIONS AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 46. The Plaintiff class has detailed widespread systemic failures ofIDEA compliance.
As a result they are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies available under the IDEA. Given that the administrative system cannot provide the Plaintiff-class with the requested class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief, exhaustion would be futile.
STATEMENT OF FACTS 47. Defendants systemically deny New Orleans students with disabilities a free appropriate public education by failing to ensure that the educational programs provided to public school students in Orleans Parish meet the requirements of the IDEA, Section 504, and Title II. 48. Since the New Orleans public schools were restructured over five years ago, the Defendants have conducted only two cursory monitoring visits. The Defendants assessed IDEA compliance in only 10 out of 59 local education agencies operating across the city. Despite the serious deficiencies in the scope of the Defendants' monitoring, these visits documented substantive IDEA violations. Nevertheless, the Defendants have failed to compel New Orleans public schools to comply with federal law by promUlgating and enforcing policies and practices that would ensure compliance. 49. Defendants have further failed to provide sufficient oversight and monitoring of the special education services provided in New Orleans' 51 LEAs. As a result of Defendants'
16

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 17 of 60
failures, New Orleans students with disabilities suffer the following systemic violations of federal law: 1) discrimination on the basis of disability and denial of access to educational services; 2) failure to develop and implement child find procedures; 3) failure to provide a free and appropriate education that confers a meaningful educational benefit; and4) failure to provide students with discipline-related procedural safeguards. A. SYSTEMIC VIOLATION 1: DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF
DISABILITY AND DENIAL OF ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL SERVICES 50. The New Orleans public school system is built around the concept of "school choice." As stated on Defendant LDE's website "[A] basic belief inherent in public charter schools is that parents, students,and teachers would be more likely to achieve success when they choose where they go to school or where they work. For parents and students, this allows them to choose schools that more appropriately met the needs of children." (available at http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/charter/2624.html). 51. Defendants fail to pr<?vide students with disabilities with the same educational choices provided to non-disabled students. Because the Defendants have failed to execute their general supervisory authority, many local education agencies are unable or unwilling to provide special education and related services. As a result, students with disabilities are unlawfully denied admission to schools solely on the basis of their disabilities. 52. While non-disabled students can choose from. a wide variety of public schools, students.with disabilities have significantly limited options and can only attend those schools that (1) are willing to accept students with disabilities and (2) provide related services and necessary accommodations.
17

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 18 of 60
53. The Defendants have failed to promulgate and enforce policies and practices that will ensure each local education agency operating in Orleans Parish offers students with . disabilities the same educational programs and services available to non-disabled students. Because the Defendants have failed to provide local educations agencies with sufficient training, monitoring, and compliance oversight, students with disabilities are refused admission to public schools because of their disabilities. Some students with disabilities are admitted to public schools, but are counseled to leave once their disability begins to manifest. All students with disabilities have significantly fewer school choice options than their non-disabled peers.
54. Children with disabilities are significantly underrepresented in many public schools in New Orleans. Students with disabilities comprise 12.6 percent of the student population in the RSD-direct run schools. Charter schools enroll significantly fewer students with disabilities-on average 7.8 percent of charter school students have disabilities. Louisiana Department of Education, State Special Education Data Profile (2008-2009), available at http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/uploads/17133.pdf. Eleven charter schools reported that five percent or less of their student population is comprised of students with a disability.
55. When charter schools violate their contractual obligations and deny enrollment to children with disabilities, Defendant LDE fails to take appropriate action to remedy this violation. For example, Pierre A. Capdau Charter School enrolled a student body comprised of just over three percent of students with disabilities. Instead of enforcing the federal obligations to ensure that a school provides equal access to disabled students, in 2010 LDE granted Capdau a three-year charter extension because it met academic performance standards.
56. Had LDE investigated the exclusion of students with disabilities at Pierre A. Capdau Charter School it would have uncovered the plight of students like PlaintiffP .B., who is
18

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 19 of 60
identified as a student with a disability under Section 504. On October 3, 2010, a school administrator told his mother that P.B. was no longer welcome to return to school because of a manifestation of his disability. Since that time, P.B.'s mother has attempted to locate a New Orleans public school that will enroll him. Every school has turned her away and P.B. remains out of school to this day.
57. PlaintiffT.J., a student with dyslexia and ADHD, has also been denied admission to a number of schools that post low enrollment rates for students with disabilities. T.J.'s mother attempted to enroll him in A.P. Tureaud Elementary School,Nelson Elementary School, Abramson Science and Technology Charter School, Sarah T. Reed Elementary School, and Gentilly Terrace Charter School. All five schools refused to enroll T.J. because of his disability. He is currently not attending school.
58. Plaintiffs N.F., who has autism and a complete visual impairment, and M.M., who has acute cognitive delays and a severe seizure disorder, were informed by several public school officials that their schools could not accommodate students with severe disabilities.
59. M.M., who is wheelchair-bound, wanted to apply to the Lafayette Academy Charter School. However, the school's facilities are not wheelchair accessible-so his application would have been futile. B. SYSTEMIC VIOLATION 2: FAILURE TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT
CHILD FIND PROCEDURES 60. The Defendants have failed to promulgate and implement policies, practices and procedures to ensure that New Orleans students with disabilities are identified, located and evaluated. In an average Louisiana school district, 12.2 percent of all students are identified as having disabilities. Louisiana Department of Education, Special Education Performance Profile
19

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 20 of 60
(2008-09), available at http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/eiaJ2115.html. In contrast, only 8 percent ofpublic school students in New Orleans are identified as eligible for special education services. Similar school districts across the country have identified almost twice the number of students with disabilities. As a result of the Defendants' failures, children with disabilities remain unidentified and they are denied the educational services and procedural safe guards to which they are entitled under federal law.
61. A survey conducted by Educational Support Systems, Inc. ("ESS Survey") further documents systemic child find violations in New Orleans public schools. The survey evaluated the special education programs and services of 23 New Orleans charter schools. The survey finds that "an astonishing number of 504 plans" have been developed in New Orleans in comparison to other urban jurisdictions, and special education coordinators at several schools "estimated that at least 30% of students with 504 plans would qualify for special education eligibility." Educational Support Systems, Inc., The Special Education Project: A Study of 23 Charter Schools in the Recovery School District (2008). Local education agencies have fewer legal obligations to students who are only identified pursuant to Section 504. The ESS survey suggests that schools under-identify students with disabilities in a effort to escape their legal obligations under the IDEA.
62. The report concludes that "the unusual application of 504 plans suggests a possible misinterpretation and use of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and could make charter schools liable for failure to conduct Child Find and provide a· Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under IDEA as defined by special education regulations."
63. In the absence of significant policy modifications, training, oversight and monitoring, Defendant LDE's child find policies cannot be implemented in the majority of the
20

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 21 of 60
local education agencies located in New Orleans. Pursuant to LDE policy each charter school must "regularly employ certified pupil appraisal personnel to conduct individual evaluations" and "retain full responsibility for the individual evaluation." Qualified pupil appraisal personnel includes: assessment teachers/educational consultants/educational diagnosticians, certified school psychologists, qualified school social workers, speech/language pathologists, adapted physical education teachers, audiologists, certified school nurses, and occupational therapists. The Defendants have failed to ensure that local education agencies have the resources and expertise to perform necessary evaluations. As a result, many charter schools refer students to the RSD for evaluations.
64. Yet even at the RSD, which is directly run by Defendant LDE, DefendantBESE's child find procedures are unworkable. Students referred to the RSD for initial evaluations frequently must wait months before an evaluation occurs-losing valuable educational time during the wait.
65. Defendant BESE's child find policy further charges a local education agency with the responsibility to document child find activities for students who are (1) enrolled in an educational program operated by or under the jurisdiction of a public agency; (2) enrolled in a private school program within the geographic jurisdiction of a public agency; and (3) not enrolled in schooL
66. The child find policy fails to recognize that New Orleans lacks a public agency that has jurisdiction over all students residing in the geographic area. New Orleans is the only geographical region in the state in which students cannot receive child find services until they are actually admitted and enrolled in a public schooL The Defendants have further failed to appoint a public agency that is responsible for evaluating students who are homeless, migrant or who
21

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 22 of 60
attend private schools. As a result, many children with disabilities are unidentified because no appropriately-resourced local entity bears responsibility for ensuring compliance with the child find mandate.
67.. The Defendants' failure to comply with IDEA's child find mandate causes irreparable harm to a number of the named Plaintiffs. D.T. is a seven-year-old who has been denied access to educational services as a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with IDEA's child find mandate. While he was identified as a student with an emotional and . behavioral disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act during the 2008-09 school year, Langston Hughes Academy Charter School ignored clear indications that he should be evaluated for eligibility for special education services under the IDEA. D.T.'s behavioral manifestations significantly affected his academic performance, and he has persistently failed to make educational progress. Because he is unidentified as a student eligible for IDEA services, D.T. was denied access to a regular classroom with special education supports, and instead attended school in the "in-school suspension" room where he was given "work packets" that were not calculated to confer meaningful education benefit.
68. PlaintiffP.B. is similarly identified as eligible for services under Section 504. A July 2010 evaluation diagnosed him with ADHD and bipolar disorder. He is currently repeating .the seventh grade for the third time and struggles to control manifestations of his disabilities. Despite clear indications that he is eligible for special education and related services under the IDEA, he remains unidentified and unable to access the procedural protections to which he is entitled.
69. Plaintiff K.J. is identified as a student with a specific learning disability and ADHD under Section 504. Beginning in 2009, on numerous occasions, his mother requested that
22

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 23 of 60
he be evaluated for special education and related services under the IDEA, but no school has responded to her request and conducted an evaluation. K.J. has been held back in both the sixth and seventh grades and he is frequently disciplined for manifestations of his disability.
70. PlaintiffA.J. is diagnosed with ADHD and is eligible as a student with a disability under Section 504. After A.J. was suspended for a total of 40 days, A.J.'s mother requested an evaluation for special education and related services. Well over one year later, the evaluation has not occurred. As a result, A.J" who is ten years old, is functioning on a first grade level in reading.
71. In 2004, Plaintiff T.J. was evaluated by a private medical provider and found to have a specific learning disability. New Orleans public schools have wholly ignored this private evaluation and refused to conduct an educational evaluation to determine his eligibility for special education services. As a result he is several years behind his peers academically and is repeatedly punished for manifestations of his disability. C. SYSTEMIC VIOLATION 3: FAILURE TO PROVIDE A FREE APPROPRIATE
PUBLIC EDUCATION THAT CONFERS A MEANINGFUL EDUCATIONAL BENEFIT 72. In order for a child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public education, the child must receive special education and related services designed to confer education benefit. Federal law requires the development of an individualized education plan (IEP) in order to ensure that students with disabilities received educational benefit. 73. IEPs must include (1) a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance; (2) a statement of measurable annual academic and functional goals; (3) a description of how the student's progress will be measured, .and when periodic progress reports will be provided; (4) a statement of the special education and related
23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 24 of 60
services that will provided to the student; (5) an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the student will not participate in regular classes; (6) a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations necessary to measure the academic achievement and functional performance of the student; (7) the projected start date for any related services; and (8) transition services for students who have reached the age of 16. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(3).
74. An IEP is considered reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit if it is "likely to produce progress, not regression or trivial educational advancement." In short, the educational benefit that an IEP is designed to achieve must be "meaningfuL" Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael P, 118 F.3d 245,247·:48 (5th Cir. 1997)
75. Related services are also a fundamental aspect of a free appropriate public education. Federal law mandates that related services, including transportation, developmental, corrective, and other supportive services such as speech language therapy, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, social work services, counseling service'?s, orientation and mobility services, and medical services be provided as needed to assist a child to benefit from special education. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(22). To the extent these services assist a child in receiving an appropriate education, schools are required to make these services available at no cost to the student.
76. Students with disabilities aged 16 years and older are also entitled to receive transition services that will help them transition from school to adulthood, by focusing on developing skills needed for employment, post-secondary education, vocational training, or independent living. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(34); 34 C.F.R. § 300.43. The student's IEP team is required to develop a transition services plan in the IEP.
24

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 25 of 60
77. Because the Defendants have failed to promulgate and enforce policies that ensure the development and implementation of individualized education plans, related services, and transition services that confer meaningful benefit, New Orleans students with disabilities are denied a free appropriate public education.
78. The abysmal graduation and school completion rates for students with disabilities who are enrolled in the RSD underscore the Defendants' failure to ensure that these students receive educational benefit. On average, across the state of Louisiana, 19.4 percent of all students with disabilities graduate with a diploma. In comparison, only 6.8 percent of RSD students with disabilities graduate with a high school diploma. Almost 50 percent of RSD students with disabilities fail to complete school-a number much higher than the state average of 31.4 percent. Louisiana Department of Education, Special Education Performance Profile (2008-09), available at http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/eial2115.html.
79. The above-referenced ESS Survey documented numerous IDEA violations related to educational benefit. Out of 60 relevant files, 37 percent indicated that the students were functioning "well below .grade leveL" An additional 49 percent of the files indicated student functioning in the ''below grade level" range-clear evidence that many students eligible for special education are not making academic progress. Despite low academic achievement, at least 60 percent of students with disabilities surveyed had the cognitive potential to achieve at grade levei. Educational Support Systems, Inc., The Special Education Project: A Study of 23 Charter Schools in the Recovery School District (2008).
80. The results of the eighth grade Louisiana Educational Assessment Program ("LEAP") also demonstrates the Defendants' failure to ensure that New Orleans public school students with disabilities are provided educational benefit. In 2007-08, 94.6 percent of all RSD
25

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 26 of 60
eighth grade students with disabilities failed the LEAP assessment. During the same year, 78.37 percent of all eighth grade charter school students with disabilities failed the test. LDE has documented that most of the students who failed the eighth grade LEAP were functioning anywhere from two to seven grade levels below the eighth grade in reading an~ in math.
81. Defendant LDE monitored the New Orleans public schools for IDEA compliance and discovered wide-spread, systemic inadequacies in IEP development. Despite this fact, LDE has taken no action to ensure that IEPs developed by New Orleans Public Schools are reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit.
82. The ESS Survey found that many schools failed to provide the appropriate related services to students with disabilities, specifically students with emotional disabilities. Each of the schools surveyed described the overwhelming need for mental health support for its students. Still, only 15 of the 23 schools provided social work or counseling as a related service, and one school reported providing no related services at all. Six schools surveyed rely on the RSD for the provision of related services. All six reported that RSD clinicians infrequently communicated and collaborated with them, sporadically attended IEP meetings, and failed to communicate with the teachers to ensure that service delivery related back to the classroom and learning. The survey further concluded that the number of special education students receiving counseling as a related service was substantially low, especially considering that many New Orleans students live with trauma caused or exacerbated by Hurricane Katrina. Educational SuppOli Systems, Inc., The Special Education Project: A Study of 23 Charter Schools in the Recovery School District (2008).
83. The ESS Survey also documented that students with disabilities in New Orleans received very limited transition services as part of their IEPs. The report cites the overwhelming
26

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 27 of 60
lack of vocational programs, internships, and resources available in New Orleans to support special education students in need of transition services.
84. When Defendant LDE conducted focused monitoring of the RSD and charter schools in February 2009, it reported similar findings. The monitoring team reviewed 27 records of RSD students ages 16 years and older and discovered that only nine of the 27 were found to have coordinated, measurable, annual rEP goals and transition services that would reasonably enable the students to meet postsecondary goals. For the charter schools, nine student records were reviewed and only two of the nine students had coordinated, measurable, annual IEP goals and transition services that would reasonably enable the students to meet postsecondary goals. When the monitoring team conducted their follow-up visit in March 2010, it again documented evidence of continuing noncompliance.
85. Named Plaintiff N.F. arrived in New Orleans from Indiana with an IEP that specified that he required individualized paraprofessional support and related services including social work and counseling services as well as orientation and mobility services. N.F.'s New Orleans school had a copy of the rEP and understood its obligation to provide N.F. with these services. But the school informed N.F. 's mother that it was too short-staffed and could not provide him with related services. As a result, N.F.'s mother was forced to attend school with him each day to help him navigate his surroundings.·
86. Plaintiff D.B. is nine years old, yet he functions on first grade level in language arts and on kindergarten level in social studies. D.B.'s rEPs reveal why he struggles to make any academic progress. For the past several years, his IEPs have lacked any discussion of his strengths and contained no description of his current level of academic achievement and functional performance. The goals contained in his IEPs are immeasurable, generic, and lack the
27

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 28 of 60
objectives that are required in order to evaluate his progress. The evaluation that detennined D.B. was eligible for special education services clearly indicates his need for related servicesincluding counseling. Yet, D.B. has been continuously denied sufficient levels of related services. Since he is not receiving the services he needs, his behavior has regressed. Consequently, D.B. fails to make meaningful academic progress.
87. After Hurricane Katrina, Plaintiff L.M. moved to Georgia. While there, he was identified as a student with a specific learning disability and emotional disability and detennined to be eligible for special education services under the IDEA. His Georgia IEP provided that he receive individualized instructions, behavior modifications and supplemental reading services. When L.M. eventually moved back to New Orleans, the schools here failed to either implement his existing IEP or convene an IEP team to develop a new IEP. L.M. has .attended numerous RSD direct run and charter school in New Orleans. Every school has failed to implement an IEP or provide him with related services. He has failed to make any academic progress. At fifteen years old, he functions on a second-to-third grade level.
88. PlaintiffL.W. is 16 years old and functioning ona second grade level in reading and a fifth grade level in mathematics. His lack of educational progress is directly related to his inadequate IEPS. L.W.'s 2009 IEP is a hand-written, illegible document that lacks a statement of measurable goals and objectives, a list of necessary accommodations, or a description of special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided. His previous IEPs contain goals that are not tailored to his specific level of performance or his unique needs. Despite exhibiting problem behavior that interfered with his academic progress, L.W. was never provided related services such as social work, counseling, or psychological services that would help him obtain some educational benefit. As a result, L.W. has continued to
28

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 29 of 60
struggle academically and he has continued to experience problem behaviors that have prevented him from achieving his educational goals.
89. Not one of the named Plaintiffs who is eligible for transition services has been provided with an IEP that contains adequate transition planning. D. SYSTEMIC VIOLATION 4: FAILURE TO PROTECT STUDENTS'
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS 90. In order to ensure that each child with a disability is provided with a free appropriate public education, the IDEA has established a number of procedural safeguards that must be provided to a student with a disability who is subject to disciplinary removals. 91. After a child is removed from his .or her current placement for more than 10 cumulative school days in a school year, procedural protections and services must be provided to the student. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(B).A school cannot impose a long-term suspension or expel a child if the behavior for which he or she is being disciplined was a "manifestation" of his or her disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E). If the child's behavior is determined to be a manifestation, the child must be permitted to return or remain at his current school placement and be provided with behavioral supports in including a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to determine the function or cause of the child's disability and a behavior intervention plan (BIP) to support and reinforce.a child's positive behavior. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(F). 92. There are certain behaviors for which a school can change a student's placement to an "interim alternative educational setting" for up to 45 days. The behaviors subject to a possible 45 day change of placement are restricted to incidents of 1) carrying a dangerous weapon to school; 2) knowingly possessing, using or selling illegal drugs at school; or 3) inflicting serious bodily injury on another individual at schooL Nevertheless, the interim
29

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 30 of 60
alterative educational setting must still provide the child a free appropriate public education. The placement must also include services to address the behavior for which the student is being suspended. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(G).
93. IDEA's disciplinary protections extend to students who the school knew or should have known are students with disabilities. If a school is considered to have knowledge that a
,
child has a disability, the child is entitled to assert the same disciplinary protections available to students who have been identified as students with disabilities under IDEA. 20 U.S.c. § 1415(k)(5).
94. New Orleans public school students with disabilities are punished and excluded from the classroom at rates that are among the highest in the state. New Orleans students with disabilities are much more likely to be subject to out-of-school suspensions than their nondisabled peers. Despite the existence of these discrepancies, the Defendants' have failed to revise .and enforce policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and the protection of procedural safeguards in compliance with federal law.
95. For the 2008-09 school year, the RSD suspended 26.8 percent of all students with disabilities-a rate 63 percent higher than the statewide average. Louisiana Department of Education, Special Education Peliormance Profile (2008-09), available at http://www.doe.state.la.us/lde/eia/2115 .hunl.
96. Sadly, many of the New Orleans charter schools posted some of the highest discipline rates for students with disabilities in the state. Sojourner Truth Academy suspended ·53.8 percent of all students with disabilities-a staggering 228 percent higher than the statewide
30

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 31 of 60
average, and New Orleans College Prep Charter School suspended 52.2 percent of all students with disabilities- 218 percent higher than the statewide average
97. Some schools' numbers are even more alarming when they are compared with the out-of-school suspension rates for general education students. For example, FirstLine Schools, operating Samuel J. Green Charter School and Arthur Ashe Charter School, reported an out-ofschool suspension rate of 41.5 percent for students with disabilities - 153 percent higher than the state average, but an out-of-school suspension rate for regular education students of 30.6 percent. Similarly, McDonagh 42 Elementary Charter School suspends specia1 education students at a rate of 38.5 percent, 135 percent higher than the statewide average, yet their out-of-school suspension rates for regular education students is remarkably less at 20.5 percent. Langston Hughes Academy Charter School's out-of-school suspension rate for students with disabilities is 30.8 percent,87 percent higher than ,the state average. Yet, their out-of-school suspension rate for general education students is 12.3 percent. Lafayette Academy Charter School suspends special education students at a rate of 22.7 percent, 38 percent higher than the state average, while regular education students are suspended at a rate of 16.7 percent. The remarkably high and significantly disproportionateout-of-school suspension rates for New Orleans students with disabilities reflect pervasive noncompliance with IDEA's disciplinary provisions. Louisiana Department of Education, Special Education Pelformance Profile (2008-09), available at http://wWw.doe.state.la.us/lde/eial2115.html.
98. The ESS Survey demonstrates the Defendants' failure to enforce policies and practices that would protect New Orleans students with disabilities from unlawful classroom exclusions. The survey revealed that when students exhibited behavioral manifestations of their disabilities, schools frequently failed to intervene with behavior intervention plans. Educational
31

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 32 of 60
Support Systems, Inc., The Special Education Project: A Study of 23 Charter Schools in the Recovery School District (2008).
99. LDE monitored New Orleans public schools in March 2010 and discovered multiple violations and areas of noncompliance. The monitoring team reviewed the records of 22 students with more than 10 days of out-of-school suspensions (OSS) and detennined that each of the 22 students were denied continued educational and related services after the 10th day of suspension in violation of IDEA. Of the 22 students reviewed, 17 of those students did not have an appropriate behavior intervention plan, and the monitoring team observed that schools were not implementing positive behavioral supports.
100. The discipline policies in effect in New Orleans public schools demonstrate the Defendants' failure to ensure that local education agencies comply with federal law regarding the disciplinary procedural protections. For example, the discipline policy for Arise Academy Charter School states that if a child's individualized education program does not contain "disciplinary guidelines" then the child with a disability is subject to the same disciplinary removals as non-disabled children. The discipline policy for Pride College Prep Charter School states that students with disabilities may be subject to the same discipline rules as non-disabled students. Neither policy makes any mention of a manifestation detennination review or due process protections. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. Charter School's discipline policy states that disciplinary action for a child with a disability may consist of the same consequences for regular education students, but if the child is expelled, the parent must sign a manifestation determination form. These policies directly contradict federal law and demonstrate the schools' failure to understand and implement the procedural protections of IDEA related to manifestation determination reviews (MDRs).
32

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 33 of 60
101. Andrew H. Wilson Charter School has a discipline policy that similarly violates critical components of the IDEA. The policy provides that students with disabilities can be removed from school for up to 45 days if a student "represents a safety concern." This policy is directly contrary to the IDEA which states that if a child is found to have carried or possessed a weapon, possessed or used drugs while on school grounds, or inflicted serious bodily injury upon another person, that child may be removed from school for 45 days or less. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(G); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g).No child eligible for IDEA services can be removed from school without (1) due process and (2) a plan for providing educational services in an interim alternative educational setting during the 45 day removal. 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(g).
102. Lafayette Academy Charter School's discipline policy states that a child with a· disability may be suspended for up to 15 days. However, once a child is suspended for more than 10 days, the IDEA requires a manifestation determination review to determine if the child's behavior is related to his disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E). IDEA also deems any suspension in excess of 10 days as constituting a "change in placement" and requires that the child continue to receive special education services and have his IEP updated to include a new "functional behavioral assessment." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(C)-(D). Many charter schools, including Lusher Charter School, Milestone SABIS Charter School, Thurgood Marshall Charter School, International School of Louisiana, Einstein Charter School, Edward Hynes Charter School, Benjamin Franklin High School, New Orleans College Prep, and Warren Easton High School have school discipline polices that entirely· omit the disciplinary protections afforded to students with disabilities.
103. PlaintiffP.B. has experienced the devastating consequences of the state's failure to ensure that IDEA-compliant discipline polices are in place. His school removed him from the
33

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 34 of 60
classroom permanently, telling his mother that he was no longer welcome. The school never convened a manifestation detennination review to determine ·whether the alleged behavior was a manifestation of P.B.'s disability, nor did they provide him with documentation regarding his removal or his basic due process rights to a hearing on the matter. As a result, P.B. has now been out of school for over 15 days without educational services or a behavior support plan so that he . may progress educationally.
104. PlaintiffK.J. has been identified as a student with a disability under Section 504. During the 2009-10 school year, K.J. was removed from school for well over 10 school days. Despite these removals, the school never developed a functional behavior assessment or a behavior support plan to assistK.J. with his behavior problems. The school also never conducted a manifestation detennination review to determine if K.J. 's behaviors were related to his disability.
105. During the 2009-10 school year, A.J. was suspended more than 10 times for a total of more than 40 school days. His school never conducted a manifestation determination review and never developed a functional behavioral assessment or a behavior intervention plan in accordance with IDEA. As a result, he cumulatively missed over two months of school with no procedural protections in place to ensure that he was receiving educational services.
106. Plaintiff D.B. is a student identified with an emotional disability under IDEA. Whenever D.B. engaged in behaviors that were deemed inappropriate by the school but that were clear manifestations of his .disability, D.B. was punished, sometimes physically, and removed from the school without the disciplinary protections afforded to him under IDEA. During the 2009-10 school year, he was removed from school well over 10 days for behavior, yet a manifestation detennination review was never conducted. On multiple occasions, the school
34

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 35 of 60
resorted to isolation and physical restraints in attempt to control D.B.'s behavior. These disciplinary practices left D.B. with permanent physical and psychological injuries.
107. Similarly, Plaintiff D.T., a student with an emotional disability, was repeatedly suspended from school for behaviors which were manifestations of his disability. DUling the 2009-10 school-year, he received approximately 22 days of out-of-school suspensions, including 10 days of undocumented removals where the school would simply demand that his mother pick him up from school. Instead of developing a behavior intervention plan based on the principles of positive behavioral interventions and supports, as required under IDEA, the school developed a "behavior plan" that required that D.T. spend.80 percent of the day in in-school-suspension and then slowly work his way out of this placement. The school never conducted a manifestation determination review to determine if his behaviors were related to his disability and never provided him with the behavior supports he needed to succeed in school.
108. Finally, Plaintiff L.M., a student identified as a having an emotional disability, has been repeatedly suspended and removed from school for behaviors which are manifestations of his disability and without the procedural protections he is afforded under IDEA. During the 2009-10 school year, L.M. received over 30 days of out-of-school suspensions and was ultimately expelled, yet his schools never conducted manifestation determination reviews to determine if his behaviors were related to his emotional disability. Moreover, he never received a functional behavior assessment or behavior intervention plan to address his behavioral needs.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS' INJURIES 109. Summarized below are the violations of federal law suffered by the named Plaintiffs as a result of the Defendants failure to comply with their general supervisory responsibilities by failing to appropriately monitor, identify, and compel the New Orleans public
35

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 36 of 60
schools to eliminate the numerous systemic violations of IDEA, Section 504, and Title II. These violations illustrate the specific irreparable hann suffered the Plaintiff class as a result of the Defendants' failure to comply with federal law.
Plaintiff P.B. 110. P.B. is a 15-year-old seventh grade student, who has been identified as a student with bipolar disorder and ADHD under Section 504. He began the 2010-11 school year enrolled at Pierre A. Capdau Charter School, but on Sunday, October 3,2010, a school administrator told his mother, Ms. Berry, that P.B. was no longer welcome to attend school. Since then, P.B:has been out of school despite his mother's effort to enroll him in another New Orleans public school. 111. Pierre A. Capdau Charter School has had reason to suspect tharP.B. is a student with a disability who also needs special education and related services under IDEA, but the school has failed to exercise its affirmative dutyto evaluate and provide him with the appropriate special education services in accordance with federal law. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a). 112. In July 2010, P.B. was evaluated by a local psychologist who diagnosed P.B. with bipolar disorder and ADHD, and requested that his school conduct an educational evaluation to determine his eligibility for special education under IDEA. P.B.'s mother and grandmother submitted this evaluation-to school officials. P.B. has struggled to make academic progress. The school had clear indications that he needed special education services. Despite these indications and his mother's clear request for an evaluation, the school has failed to perform an evaluation.
36

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 37 of 60
113. P.B. has also not been provided the free appropriate public education and necessary accommodations he is entitled to under Section 504. As a result, he continues to suffer severe academic deficits.
114. P.B. was held back once in the fourth grade and he has been held back twice in the seventh grade. As a 15-year-old student in the seventh grade for the third time, it is clear that P.B. has experienced a multitude of academic setbacks. He is functioning significantly below grade level and he is failing most of his academic courses. Yet, the school has consistently failed to provide the necessary accommodations and supports so thatP.B. would be able to receive a free appropriate public education.
115. P.B. was permanently excluded from his school without due process for allegedly threatening a teacher. The school made no efforts to determine if the alleged misconduct was a manifestation of a P.B.'s disability. Nor did the school provide P.B. with his due process rights.
116. On October 14, 2010, Ms. Berry went to the school to request P.B's academic records. School officials told her that unless she signed a "withdrawal form" she could not access her child's records. Ms. Berry made it clear to school officials that she did not wish to withdrawal her son from school, but she was informed that he was no longer allowed to attend the school. Desperate to get son em-oIled in another school, she signed the withdrawal form so thatshe could access her son's records.
117. Following these events, Ms. Berry and a parent advocate have attempted to identify and locate a school for P.B. to attend. Ms. Berry and the advocate have contacted approximately 20 charter schools and the RSD, infonning them that P.B. is a student with a disability not enrolled in school. None of the schools have indicated that they have the capacity
37

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 38 of 60
or willingness to accept him, and the RSD has not returned Ms. Berry's phone calls. As a result, he remains out of school and without educational services in violation of federal law.
118. P.B. has been out of school and denied educational instruction for over 15 days. He has been subject to discrimination on the basis of his disability by being excluded from attending Pierre A. Capdau Charter School, and he has been denied the benefits available to other non-disabled students in New Orleans to choose their educational program in violation of Section 504 and Title II.
Plaintiff K.J. 119. K.J. is a 14-year-old eighth grade student at Samuel J. Green Charter School. He was identified as a student with a specific learning disability and ADHD under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. K.J. has been denied special education and related services in violation of IDEA's child find mandate, and he has been denied a free and appropriate public education under SeCtion 504 and Title II. 120. The school has had reason to suspect that K.J. is a student with a disability who also needs special education and related services under IDEA, but they failed to exercise their affirmative duty to evaluate him and provide him with the necessary special education services in accordance with federal law. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a). 121. K.J.'s mother has, on numerous occasions during the 2009-10 school year and at the beginning ·of the 2010-11 school year, requested that K.J. be evaluated for special education services and related services under IDEA. An educational evaluation has still not been initiated
in violation of the timelines and procedures ofIDEA.
38

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 39 of 60
122. Because K.J. has not been identified under IDEA as a child with a disability and because the school has failed to provide him with appropriate accommodations under Section 504 and Title II, K.J. continues to experience academic and behavioral difficulties.
123. During the 2009-10 school year, K.J. received nine documented out of school suspensions and countless undocumented suspensions for behaviors that were manifestations of his disability, such as willful disobedience and treating authority with disrespect. He received five suspensions because he had accumulated 15 or more behavior "marks" or referrals in the course of one week for minor school violations. On a number of occasions, school officials simply demanded that K.J. leave the school campus after his disability manifested in behaviors that violated minor schoolmles. On those occasions, K.J. was not provided any paperwork or a formal explanation forthese removals.
124. K.J.' sbehavioral difficulties have continued to manifest during the 2010-11 school year. His school has imposed on him four undocumented suspensions and countless referrals for behaviors directly related to his disability, such as talking in class and causing a classroom disturbance.
125. The school's failure to appropriately identify and evaluate K.J. for a disability under IDEA and the school's failure to provide him with accommodations under Section 504 and Title II has also adversely affected his academic progress, ultimately resulting in a denial of a free appropriate public education. He was held back in the sixth grade and seventh grade, scoring an unsatisfactory on his Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP) test in both English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics. He receives failing grades and continues to exhibit difficulty reading and comprehending classroom material. K.J.'s school offers an
39

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 40 of 60
academic enrichment program to assist students with their schoolwork - but the school threatened to bar him from the program because of behavioral manifestations of his disability.
126. Despite clear evidence that K.J.'s disability prevents him from achieving academic gains, his school has failed to appropriately identify him and has left him without the accommodations, services, and protections that would help him achieve academic success.
Plaintiff A.J. 127. A.J. is a 10-year-old fifth grade student at Lagniappe Academy Charter School. He has a diagnosis of ADHD, and was identified as a student with a disability under Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act during the 2008-09 school year. A.J. has been denied special education and related services in violation ofIDEA'schild find mandate, and he has been denied.access to necessary educational accommodations and modifications under Section 504 and Title II. 128. As a result of his disability, A.J. is easily distracted, has difficulty following directions, .and becomes agitated when forced to sit still for extended periods of time. During the 2009-10 school year, A.J. was enrolled at Albert Wicker Elementary School, a traditional public school operated by the RSD. He was suspended more than 10 times for a total of more than 40 school days. All of his suspensions were for behaviors related to his disability, such as running in the halls, refusing to sit down, disrespect for authority, leaving the classroom without permission, and causing a class disturbance. 129. A.J.'s disability has also contributed to his continuing academic struggles. In addition to receiving failing grades in almost all of his classes, A.J. is functioning well below grade level in all academic content areas.
40

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 41 of 60
130. Despite his demonstrated need, A.J. has never been provided any behavioral
interventions or accommodations such as a functional behavior assessment or a behavior
intervention plan so that he may make educational progress. 131. After observing her son's continued struggles in school, A.J.'s mother requested
that the school evaluate him for special education services, and A.J.' s psychiatrist echoed this request. In December 2009, Ms. Jefferson signed a consent form authorizing an evaluation for special education services. IDEA requires that the initial evaluation he conducted within 60 days ofreceiving parental consent. The evaluation never occurred.
132. When A.J. began at Lagniappe Academy Charter School in August 2010, Ms. Jefferson again requested an evaluation for special education services but was told that the school would not initiate any new evaluations until the school occupies its new building. A.J. remains unevaluated and unidentified for special education and related services under IDEA.
Plaintiff T.J. 133. T.J. is a 13-year-old fifth grade student, who has been denied access to public school because of his disability. T.J. is not currently enrolled or attending school. From the 200708 school year through the 2009-10 school year, T.J. was enrolled in Fannie C. Williams Elementary School. 134. T.J. was evaluated by Daughters of Charity in 2004 and determined to have a specific learning disability. For the past four years, T.J. has also manifested behaviors typical of a child with ADHD and/or possibly an emotional disability. He has difficulty controlling his behavior and impulses as well as trouble communicating with peers and adults in an appropriate manner. Despite these ongoing symptoms and severe academic deficits, T.J. has never been evaluated to determine if he is a student with a disability under IDEA or Section 504.
41

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 42 of 60
135. T.J. was retained twice in the second grade and once in the third grade. He has demonstrated difficulty learning in school and he receives mostly failing grades. In addition to his academic struggles, T.J.'s disability makes it difficult for him to control his impulsive and sometimes disruptive behavior. This resulted in disciplinary removals from school related to his disability. On April 1, 2010, he was expelled from Fannie C. Williams Elementary School,
an without ever being evaluated for a disability. T.J. was not provided opportunity to attend an
alternative school, and therefore he went without educational instruction and services for the remainder of the 2009-10 school year.
136. Beginning the 2010-11 school year, T.J.'s mother has unsuccessfully attempted to enroll him in a number of schools in New Orleans: After speaking with personnel at the Recovery School District about available schools, Ms. Johnson, who lacks transportation, took the city bus or walked to five different schools: A.P. Tureaud Elementary School, Nelson Elementary School, Abramson Science and Technology Charter School, Sarah T. Reed Elementary School, and Gentilly Terrace Charter School. All five schools told her that T;J. could not enroll in their school. Ms. Johnson has left repeated messages for personnel at RSD about her inability to enroll T.J. in school. She has received no response.
Plaintiff D.T. 137. D.T. is a seven-year-old second grade student at Fannie C. Williams Elementary School. He was first identified as a student with an emotional and behavioral disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act during the 2008-09 school year while attending Langston Hughes Academy Charter School. D.T. has been denied special education and related services in violation of IDEA's child find mandate, and he has been denied access to necessary educational accommodations and modifications under Section 504 and Title II.
42

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 43 of 60
138. As a result of his disability, D.T. is often impulsive and anxious. He has difficulty following directions and frequently becomes agitated when he feels threatened by adults. During the 2009-10 school year he received approximately 22 days of out-of-school suspension: 12 days of documented out-of-school suspensions, and approximately 10 additional days of undocumented suspensions. During the undocumented suspensions, school officials would request that his mother immediately remove him from the school campus without formal notice or documentation of the removal. D.T. received these suspensions for behaviors directly related to his disability such as disruptive behavior, noncompliance, causing a class disturbance, leaving school without permission, and refusing to do assigned work.
139. Based on D.T.'s known disability and behavioral manifestations, Langston Hughes Academy Charter School has reason to suspect that D.T. is a student with a disability who also needs special education and related services under IDEA, but the school has failed to exercise its affirmative duty to evaluate and provide him with the appropriate special education and related services in accordance with federal law. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 (a).
140. Despite frequent behavioral manifestations resulting in constant disciplinary removals from the classroom, D.T. was never provided with the supports and services to enable him to make educational progress.
141. In fact, D.T.'s most recent behavior intervention plan, dated May 3,2010, states that D.T. will remain in In-School-Suspension (ISS) for 80 percent of the day, where he will be given work packets without classroom instruction, and he will be required to slowly work his way back in to the regular classroom setting. The plan provides no counseling, mental health
43

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 44 of 60
services, or other effective behavioral interventions. Unsurprisingly, D.T.'s ~ehavior intervention plan did little address D.T.'s unique educational and behavioral needs.
142. As a result of the school's failure to provide D.T. with appropriate educational services, his behavior has regressed and his academic progress suffered. Over the course of the 2009-10 school year, school staff brutally restrained D.T. approximately five times as a consequence for manifestations of his disability. In December 2009, a teacher removed D.T. from the classroom and shoved him into a brick wall with such force that he sustained a head injury that required medical attention. His mother filed a report with the New Orleans Police Department and the Office of Community Services. On three separate occasions, D.T. was physically removed from the classroom and dragged down the hallway to the band room where he was locked in a dark closet and kept there for approximately one hour on each occasion.
143. These harmful restraint and seclusion techniques have caused D.T.'s behavior to regress. He exhibits symptoms associated with trauma. He has developed an intense fear of . school and has nightmares and wets the bed several times per week. The school's abusive restraint and seclusion techniques violate specific provisions of IDEA that require the use of positive behavioral interventions and support strategies to address student behavior. 20 U.S.c. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(i).
Plaintiff N.F. 144. N.F. is a nine-year-old fourth grade student at Lafayette Academy Charter School. He has been identified as a student with multiple disabilities under IDEA: autism and total visual impairment!blindness.
44

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 45 of 60
145. Prior to the 2009-10 school year, N.F. attended school in Indiana. His IEP there complied with IDEA and stated N.F. would receive the assistance of a paraprofessional to provide him with individualized support in the classroom.
146. Under IDEA, if a child with a disability transfers from another state, the new school must provide services comparable to those described in the child's IEP from the previous school, until a new IEP is developed and implemented. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(f). When N.F. began the 2009-10 school year at John Dibert Elementary School in New Orleans, his mother met with his IEP team, advised the team of N.F. 's disabilities and requested a child-specific paraprofessional. The school claimed that it was too short-staffed and denied this request. As a result, N.F.'s mother was forced to attend school with him on a daily basis to help him navigate the stairs at the school, and to provide one-on-one instruction assistance and support in the classroom.
147. Frustrated with the lack of services provided to N.F., his mother sought a new placement. She ultimately settled on Coghill Elementary School, which had previous experience serving students with visual impairments. The IEP team there did in fact recognize the extent of N.F.'s needs. His January 13,2010 IEP explains that N.F. requires full support throughout the day.and it states that he needs individualized paraprofessional support. Despite the mandate of his IEP and his mother's numerous attempts to secure this service from the RSD, N.F. did not receive his one-one-one paraprofessional support he needed to make academic gains and to successfully navigate his physical environment.
148. N.F.'s December 3, 2009 evaluation states that he needs related services to help him develop necessary social skills. However, he is not currently provided any social work or counseling related services - making his academic and behavioral goals and objectives
45

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 46 of 60
impossible to reach. Similarly, N.F.'s total visual impainnent reflects a need for orientation and mobility serVices, but N.F. went for over four months without receiving orientation and mobility services.
PlaintiffN.F. and PlaintiffM.M. 149. As described above, N.F. has autism and total visual impainnent. PlaintiffM.M. is a seven-year-old second grade student, who also lives with multiple disabilities, including acute cognitive delays and severe seizure disorder. Because of his extensive disabilities, M;M. is non-communicative and has limited mobility. He currently attends Benjamin Banneker Elementary School. Both N.F. and M.M. have been denied access to educational programming because oftheir disabilities in violation ofIDEA, Section 504, and Title II. 150. In mid-March 2010, N.F.'smother and M.M.'s mother together visited public schools throughout New Orleans to determine which schools could best accommodate their children. Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. McSween quickly discovered that their sons did not have access to the variety of educational opportunities available to non-disabled students in New Orleans as required by federal law. ,151. First, Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. McSween visited Esperanza Charter School where they were infonned that the school stafflacks the necessary training to serve children with severe disabilities and that the school staff could not accommodate N.F. or M.M. A school staffmember encouraged the mothers to present their son's IEPs to the school's Board of Directors so the Board could consider N.F. and M.M.'s special needs and make an ultimate admissions decision. Both parents completed an application and attached their sons' IEPs. Neither parent ever received a response from the school.
46

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 47 of 60
152. Next, Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. McSween visited Samuel J. Green Charter School, operated by FirstLine Schools, which also operates Arthur Ashe Charter School. They were infonned that neither Samuel J. Green Charter School nor Arthur Ashe Charter School could accommodate children with severe disabilities.
153. Finally, Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. McSween visited Andrew Wilson Charter School. They were told by school personnel that they would need to meet with the school's special education coordinator to determine whether the school could accommodate N.F.'s or M.M.'s special needs. The special education coordinator was unavailable, but the mothers left detailed messages informing her about their sons' needs. The school failed to respond to either parent.
154. Mrs. McSween attempted to contact several other schools to discuss the educational programs and services that could be provided to M.M. She telephoned Audubon Charter School twice and asked to speak with the special education coordinator or the faculty member in charge of coordinating special education programs. She was told that there was no such faculty member at Audubon Charter School. Mrs. McSween then visited Lafayette Academy Charter School. There, she was welcomed by school personnel who appeared committed to serving children with disabilities, but the school's facilities are not wheelchair .accessible - so M.M. was again barred from equal educational opportunities.
Plaintiff D.B. 155. D.B. is a nine-year-old fourth grade student at Langston Hughes Academy Charter School. He has an emotional disability under IDEA and has been eligible for special education and related services since the 2007-08 school year.
47

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 48 of 60
156. D.B. has not received the individualized education plan (IEP) or related services that are necessary to ensure that he receives educational benefit. He has also been unlawfully removed from the classroom for manifestations of his disabilities.
157. According to his recent IEP, D.B. is functioning well below grade level in all academic subjects. He functions on a first grade level in English Language Arts (ELA), mathematics, and science, and he is on a kindergarten level in social studies. He has clearly made little academic progress since he was identified as a student with a disability. This is in part due to the inadequacies of his IEPs, which have failed to comply with the mandates of federal law.
158. His September 23, 2008 IEP contains no description of D.B.'s strengths, no discussion of parental concerns, no description of his academic, developmental, and functional needs, and no real description of his current level of academic achievement and functional performance. His 2008 and 2009 IEPs list goals that are immeasurable, generic, and that entirely ignore D.B.'s strengths and wealmesses.
159. D.B.'s behavioral needs have been similarly neglected. His disability manifests itself in emotional "meltdowns" that-occurred at school three-to four times -per week, increasing in frequency throughout the course of the 2009-10 school year. Despite his increased need for interventions, D.B.'s IEP did not change during this time period. The IEP team entirely failed to address the possible causes of his emotional responses and failed to make necessary adjustments to his behavior support plan. Even when adjustments were made to his behavior support plan at the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, the school has failed to implement the behavior support plan as written.
48

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 49 of 60
160. As a result of the deficiencies in D.B.'s IEP, his behavior has regressed and his academic progress has suffered. D.B. has not been provided with a free appropriate public education as defined by IDEA, largely because his IEPs are not reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit.
161. D.B.' seva1uation clearly describes his critical need for related seTVlces specifically social skills assistance and counseling. Unfortunately, he has never received adequate related services. During the 2008-09 school year, D.B. received no related services at all, and during the 2009-10 school year, D.B. received a mere 30 minutes once a week of counseling. As behavioral manifestations of his disability increased during the 2009-10 school year, D.B.'s related service levels remained unchanged. The lack of related services has effectively denied him an opportunity to avoid repeated disciplinary removals from school and cut short his changes of making any real educational gains. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.34.
162. D.B. was subject to approximately 15 days of out-of-schoo1 removals during the 2009-10 school year asa consequence for behaviors that were manifestations of his disability. Some of these suspensions were undocumented removals during which the school would call D.B.'s mother and ask her to pick him up from school for the day. Although D.B. was removed from school for well over 10 cumulative school days, the school never cond1l:cted a manifestation determination review, nor did it provide him with any educational services during these unlawful removals, in violation ofIDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. 300.530-36.
163. D.B. was also brutally restrained and held against his will in an isolation room approximately 10 times throughout the course of the school year as a consequence for manifestations of his disability. Each incident caused D.B. to decompensate. On April 8,2010,
49

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 50 of 60
D.E. was distressed - crying and mumbling unintelligibly - when the behavior interventionist at Langston Hughes approached him. D.E.· initially calmed down, but when the behavior interventionist began escorting him to the in-school-suspension (ISS) room, D.E. began to panic. When he fell to the floor sobbing, the behavior interventionist grabbed him by his arms and dragged him six feet into the ISS room. This was done with such force that D.B.'s face and mouth slammed into the ground, chipping his tooth. After sustaining this injury, D.B. panicked further and the behavior interventionist physically restrained him for fifteen minutes before carrying him to a small, soundproof closet, where he was held for another 30 minutes.
164. Similarly, on May 12, 2010, D.B. allegedly refused to follow directions. In. response, the Dean of Students and a paraprofessional physically carried him to the isolation room. D.E. panicked upon entering the isolation room and the paraprofessional physically restrained him. The paraprofessional told D.B. that ifhe was unable to calm down, he would be handcuffed .and tasered. The paraprofessional then sat on top ofD.B. - constricting his breathing and eventually causing him to urinate on himself.
165. These harmful restraint and seclusion techniques have continued during the 201011 school year causing D.E.'s :behavior to regress, exacerbating his disability and causing him to fear school. The school's abusive restraint and seclusion techniques violate the explicit provisions of IDEA that require the use of positive behavioral intervention and support strategies to address student behavior. 20 U.S.c. § 1414(d)(3)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(a)(2)(i).
Plaintiff L.M. 166. L.M. is a 15-year-old ninth grade student currently enrolled at New Orleans Charter Science and Math Academy ("Sci Academy"). He is identified as a student with an emotional disability and he is eligible for special education services under IDEA.
50

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 51 of 60
167. L.M. has failed to receive IEPs reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit, and he has not been provided with the types and levels of related services or the necessary and appropriate transition services to allow him to benefit from special education. In addition, L.M. has been subject to repeated illegal disciplinary removals without the procedural safeguards guaranteed by federal law.
168. Following his evacuation from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, L.M. enrolled in an Augusta, Georgia school. There he was identified as a student with a Specific Learning Disability (SLD). His IEP specified that he was to receive individualized instruction, a variety of academic and behavioral modifications, and pullout reading services. The Georgia IEP. team also developed a comprehensive behavior intervention plan (BIP).
169. When L.M. returned to New Orleans for the 2008-09 school year, he enrolled in Joseph Craig Elementary School. His legal guardian, Mr. Joseph, provided the staff at Craig Elementary with a copy of the Georgia IEP and requested the convening of an IEP team. The staff failed to comply with these requests, and L.M.'s services and supports were interrupted. This interruption occurred in violation of the IDEA which requires the new public agency to provide comparable IEP services to those received from the out-of-state public agency until a new IEP can be developed, if necessary. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(f).
170. As a result of the lack of services he received at Craig Elementary, L.M. began to experience substantial academic and behavioral difficulties. During the fall 2008 semester, L.M. failed all of his classes at Craig Elementary, he was recommended for expulsion twice, and he received over 40 days of out-of-school suspensions for behaviors that were a manifestation of his disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. §300.530-36.
51

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 52 of 60
171. On December 17, 2008, L.M. was again recommended for expulsion for an alleged altercation with a teacher. The student hearing officer expelled L.M., even though the school failed to complete a legally required manifestation determination review to detennine if the behavior was a manifestation of his disability. L.M. was assigned to attend Schwarz Alternative School for the spring 2009 semester. He never attended Schwarz, but instead returned to Georgia in January 2009 to live with his grandmother until she died in April 2009.
172. After his grandmother's death, L.M. returned to New Orleans to live with Mr. Joseph. Shortly following his return in August 2009, L.M. sustained a gunshot wound while playing outside with his friends. As a result, L.M. was hospitalized at Children's Hospital for approximately 30 days. Children's Hospital staff conducted a detailed neuropsychological evaluation and detenninedthat L.M. was in need of comprehensive special education and related services. In September 2009, Children's Hospital provided a detailed report to the RSD and L.M.'s school with extensive recommendations for accommodations and behavior modification strategies to assist him in school. The staff at Children's Hospital even scheduled a meeting with school personnel at Hope Academy to review the results of the evaluation and report.
173. Despite the hospital's efforts, the school did not develop an updated IEP, and utterly failed to provide L.M. with special education and related services. As a result of these failures, L.M. continued to suffer academic and behavioral setbacks. In fact, he was bounced around to four different RSD schools during the 2009-10 school year before ending up at the RSD alternative school. He received over 30 days of out-of-school suspension, a recommendation for expulsion, and multiple school-initiated arrests, yet he was never provided with the behavior supports and services needed for him to receive educational benefit.
52

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 53 of 60
174. His records indicate that he has been functioning on the second grade level in reading and the third grade level in math for several years. He has failed to make any academic progress while enrolled in school in New Orleans.
175. It was not until May 21, 2010 that L.M. received a new evaluation and IEP. While the updated IEP included some provision of related services, consisting of 30 minutes once per week of counseling and social work and 30 minutes once per week of speech and language therapy, these levels are inadequate considering the nature of L.M.' s disability and the extent of his academic deficits and behavioral functioning.
176. While L.M. was provided with a transition plan as part of his May 21,2010 IEP, the plan fails to address his transition needs. The services described on his transition plan are not specific to L.M.'s post-secondary school interest, nor are they specific to his unique strengths and abilities. Instead, the transition plan is generic and fails to specify any concrete services to' allow L.M. to succeed in a post-secondary setting. Consequently, he has been denied appropriate educational services as a result of the school's failure to provide the necessary and appropriate transition services.
177. Even following L.M.'sevaluation and subsequent IEP, he has continued to experience frequent and excessive out-of-school removals for behaviors that are manifestations of his disability. For the 2010-11 school year, he has already been suspended from Sci Academy in excess often school days. He is currently not being provided his speech and language therapy related services, and he has been excluded from participation in school events solely on the basis of his disability in violation of Section 504 and Title II. L.M.'s school recently received recognition from Oprah Winfrey and the students were permitted to attend a screening of the presentation in a nearby auditorium. L.M. was not permitted to attend because of his emotional
53

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 54 of 60
disability. School officials left him behind at the school while the other students were given the opportunity to participate in the event.
Plaintiff L.W. 178. L.W. is a 16-year-old ninth grade student currently enrolled at KIPP Renaissance High School. He is diagnosed with ADHD and is identified as eligible for special education services under IDEA. 179. L.W. has not been provided with IEPs reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit, nor has he been provided the appropriate related services or transitional services in violation of IDEA. In addition, the school has failed to conduct his reevaluation in accordance with the timelines and procedures mandated by IDEA. 180. L.W. began the 2009-10 school year enrolled at KIPP Believe College Prep. When it came time for L.W. to undergo his triennial reevaluation, KIPP Believe failed to reevaluate L.W. in accordance with the timelinesand procedures mandated by IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b)(2). 181. Although KIPP Believe received parental consent for a full evaluation in all areas of suspected disability on August 28, 2009, the evaluation had not been completed when L.W. withdrew from KIPP Believe in January 2010. In fact, L.W.'s educational records indicate that KIPP Believe failed to secure the necessary personnel to conduct L.W.'sevaluation. 182. After L.W. left KIPP Believe and enrolled in Douglass Eighth Grade Academy, a traditional RSD-run school, on March 5, 2010, his grandmother and guardian gave written consent for a full evaluation. The evaluation was conducted and disseminated on June 4, 2010, and it changed L.W.'s eligibility ruling from Other Health Impaired (OHI) to Mild Mental Disability. Yet, the results of the evaluation were never reviewed with L.W.'s grandmother and
54

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 55 of 60
she was unaware of the change in eligibility until an IEP meeting that was recently held on October 18,2010. The school's failure to review the results of the evaluation and the change in eligibility detennination violate the. evaluation procedures required in accordance with IDEA. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.306.
183. L.W. has also not been provided with IEPs reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. His October 2009 IEP from KIPP Believe is a handwritten, illegible document that fails to meet IDEA criteria. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.323. Specifically, the IEP does not include a statement of measurable annual goals and objectives, a list of any necessary accommodations, or a description of the special educ~tion, related services, and supplementary aids and services to be provided.
184. His previous IEPs from KIPP Believe contain generic goals that were not tailored toL-W.'s level of performance or his unique needs. No accompanying objectives were listed for any of his goals. He never received a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) or Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) despite the fact that behavior routineiyinterfered with his academic progress and is characteristic of his disability.
185. L.W.'s educational program at KIPP Believe failed to confer meaningful educational benefit as required by IDEA. Since 2006, L.W. has made no progress in reading-he reads at the second grade level. He has made only moderate progress in mathematics. L.W. scored unsatisfactory on his LEAP exams, he received failing grades in almost all of his courses, and his teachers at KIPP reported that he was making unsatisfactory progress in all areas.
186. Despite suffering from the symptoms associated with ADHD, including extreme impulsivity, distractibility, low frustration tolerance, and frequent off-task behavior, L.W. was not provided with any related services at KIPP Believe. School officials frequently disciplined
55

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 56 of 60
L.W. and told him that the behavioral manifestations of his disability were major contributors to
his academic challenges. Nevertheless, L.W. '8 IEP team at KIPP Believe never included related
services such as social work, counseling, or psychological services that would help him obtain some educational benefit. Even now, L.W. is only receiving 30 minutes of counseling once a week. These levels are woefully inadequate given his constant behavioral manifestations. As a result, L.W. has continued to struggle academically, and he has continued to experience problem behaviors that have prevented him from achieving educational goals.
187. Finally, L.W. has been denied the necessary and appropriate transition services that will prepare him for employment, post-secondary education, vocational training, and independent living. L.W. 's IEPs have lacked a transition plan or transition services so that he may achieve his post secondary goals.
CAUSES OF ACTION 188. Representative Plaintiffs and the proposed class incorporate by reference all of the above factual allegations to support the following claims:
Count I DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY VIOLATIONS OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004
189. As set forth above, Defendants Pastorek, LDE, and BESE have failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated children with a free appropriate public education, both procedurally and substantively, as mandated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of2004 (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq.).
56

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 57 of 60
190. Defendants Pastorek, LDE, and BESE have also failed to comply with their general supervisory responsibilities by failing to appropriately monitor, identify, and compel the New Orleans public schools to eliminate the numerous systemic violations ofIDEA
191. Plaintiffs and the proposed class seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein.
Count II DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY VIOLATIONS OF
SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 192. By their foregoing actions and inactions, Defendants Pastorek, LDE and BESE are liable pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., 34 C.F.R. § 104 et seq.) for discriminating against Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent by depriving them of appropriate accessibility to essential services and programming available to non-disabled students, by virtue of their status as individuals with disabilities. 193. As set forth above, Defendants have also failed to provide Plaintiffs and similarly situated children with a free appropriate public education and/or reasonable accommodations pursuant to Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 194. Representative Plaintiffs and the proposed class seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein.
57

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 58 of 60

Count III DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO REMEDY VIOLATIONS OF TITLE
II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 195. By their foregoing actions and inactions, Defendants Pastorek, LDE and BESE are liable pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) for discriminating against Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent by depriving them of appropriate accessibility to essential services and reasonable modifications necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 196. Representative Plaintiffs and the proposed class seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct described herein.
NECESSITY FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 197. The Defendants have acted .and continue to act in violation of the law as explained above. The named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent do not have an adequate remedy at law. As a result of the policies, practices, actions and omissions of the Defendants, the named Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless Defendants, including its agents, representatives andlor employees, are restrained from continuing its unlawful practices.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court:

1. Assume jurisdiction over this matter;

2.

Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and

(b)(2);
58

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 59 of 60
3. Enter a judgment declaring that the polices, procedures, customs, patterns and/or practices of Defendants deprive Plaintiffs of their statutory rights, are illegal and/or invalid, and are in contravention of the Defendants' statutory duty to assure that Plaintiffs and similarly situated children receive a free appropriate public education.
4. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions requiring Defendants to (1) make its facilities, programs and services accessible to all students with disabilities; (2) timely and adequately identify and evaluate potentially disabled children; (3) implement appropriate education placements, services, and accommodations on their behalf; and (4) provide all students with disabilities a free appropriate public education;
5. Issue an order directing Defendants to pay the costs and disbursements incurred by Plaintiffs in commencing and maintaining this action, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(4);
6. Grant any other relief the Court shall deem just and proper.
59

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 1 Filed 10/26/10 Page 60 of 60
Dated this 26th day of October, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
s/Eden B. Heilman, La. Bar No. 30551
Sheila A. Bedi, Miss. Bar. No. 101652* Southern Poverty Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 eden.heilman@splcenter.org sheila.bedi@splcenter.org 504-486-8982 (phone) 504-486-8947 (fax)
James Comstock-Galagan, La. Bar. No. 05880 Southern Disability Law Center 4431 Canal Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70119 j galagan@sdlcenter.org 504-486-8982 (phone) 504-486-8982 (fax)
Davida Finger, La. Bar. No. 30889 Stuart H. Smith Law Clinic and Center for Social Justice Loyola University New Orleans College of Law 7214 St. Charles Avenue, Box 902 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 dfinger@loyno.edu 504-861-5596 (phone) 504-861-5440 (fax)
Jon Greenbaum, D.C. Bar No. 489887* Brenda L. Shum, Or. Bar No. 961146 * Jemlifer M. Coco, Ill. Bar No. pending* Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law 1401 New York Avenue NW, Suite 400 Washington, District of ~olumbia 20005 jgreenbaum@lawyerscOlmnittee.org bshum@lawyerscommittee.org jcoco@lawyerscommittee.org 202-662-8600 (phone) 202-783-0857 (fax)
* Pro Hac Vice Motions to be filed
60

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 295 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

P.B., by and through his next friend, Cassandra Berry, et al.
Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN WHITE, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049 ) Section A ) Judge Jay C. Zainey ) Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby ) ) )

ORDER The Plaintiffs, the State Defendants, and the Defendant-Intervenor Orleans Parish School Board (“OPSB”) have agreed upon the substantive provisions of a Consent Judgment to resolve all of the Plaintiffs’ claims in the above-captioned case pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794; and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA or “Title II”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Based on the Court’s review of the Consent Judgment, and following the Rule 23 class action notice and comment process and the February 9, 2015 fairness hearing, the Court finds the Consent Judgment to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, and not the product of collusion among the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The Court additionally finds that there is no reason to doubt the Consent Judgment’s fairness and adequacy, that the Consent Judgment has no obvious deficiencies, and that the Consent Judgment does not grant preferential treatment to the Plaintiff Class Representatives. The Court further finds that the Consent Judgment does not violate the Constitution, statute, or jurisprudence.

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 295 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 2 Accordingly, on this ______ day of ______M_a_r_c_h_________, 201_5_, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, it is ORDERED: The Court hereby enters the Consent Judgment in its entirety as to all Parties. ____________________________________ The Honorable Jay C. Zainey United States District Judge
2

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 1 of 25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

P.B., by and through his next friend, Cassandra Berry, et al.
Plaintiffs, vs. JOHN WHITE, et al.,
Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049 ) Section A ) Judge Jay C. Zainey ) Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby ) ) )

CONSENT JUDGMENT

7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 2 of 25
Table of Contents
Page
I. PARTIES....................................................................................................................................3 II. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................3 III. DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................................3 IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................................6 V. INDEPENDENT MONITOR................................................................................................15 VI. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................17 VII. ENFORCEMENT ...............................................................................................................17 VIII. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION ...........................18 IX. CLASS NOTICE ..................................................................................................................19 X. ATTORNEYS’ FEES ............................................................................................................20 XI. MEDIA ..................................................................................................................................20 XII. MISCELLANEOUS ...........................................................................................................21

7527649v.1

2 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 3 of 25

I. PARTIES
This Consent Judgment (“Agreement”) is entered among and between the Settlement Class (defined below); the Louisiana State Superintendent of Education (in his official capacity); the Louisiana Department of Education; the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education; and the Orleans Parish School Board.

II. INTRODUCTION
1. The Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of New Orleans students with disabilities pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. This Agreement was entered into to resolve this litigation, and the Parties stipulate that nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission of liability or evidence of liability.
2. The Plaintiffs are the named Plaintiffs, P.B., D.B., N.F., A.J., T.J., K.J., M.M., L.M., D.T., and L.W., on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the Settlement Class.
3. The State Defendants are the Louisiana State Superintendent of Education (in his official capacity); the Louisiana Department of Education; and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (collectively, “State Defendants”).
4. The Defendant-Intervenor is the Orleans Parish School Board (“OPSB”).

III. DEFINITIONS
1. “ADA” refers to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165.
2. “BESE” refers to the Defendant Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. BESE oversight responsibilities include the approval and adoption of rules, by-laws, and regulations for the government of the public elementary and secondary schools and other public schools and programs under its jurisdiction.
3. “Child Find” refers to the IDEA’s requirement that children with disabilities, “and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated and a practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children with disabilities are currently receiving needed special education and related services.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3).
4. “Days” are measured in calendar days; weekend days are included.

7527649v.1

3 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 4 of 25

5. “Deidentified” means edited to remove information that could be used, alone or in combination with other information, to allow a recipient of student educational records to personally identify any current or former student of a Louisiana public or nonpublic elementary, middle, or high school. Deidentification of student educational records shall include the removal of student names, phone numbers, electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, birth dates, physical addresses, biometric identifiers, and photographic images.
6. “Disciplinary removal” means an out-of-school suspension, or any other removal of a student from class during which the student (i) is not afforded the opportunity to continue to appropriately participate in the general curriculum; (ii) does not receive the services specified on the student’s IEP; or (iii) does not continue to participate with nondisabled children to the extent they would have in their current placement.
7. “Effective Date” means the date the Court enters an order approving this Agreement.
8. “Good cause” means fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on the part of either party, that are not arbitrary, capricious, trivial, or pretextual.
9. “IDEA” refers to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
10. “Include,” “includes,” or “including” means “include, but not be limited to” or “including, but not limited to.”
11. “LDOE” refers to the Defendant Louisiana Department of Education, the state educational agency in Louisiana responsible for supervising the provision of public elementary and secondary education in the state of Louisiana.
12. “LEA” refers to local educational agency, as defined by 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19):
“[A] public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State . . . .”
LEAs in this settlement include OPSB as a single school district, each Type 2 charter school in New Orleans, and each Type 5 charter school in New Orleans.
13. “Monitor” means an individual selected by the Parties to oversee implementation of the Agreement and to report to the Court on the implementation of the Agreement.
14. “Noncompliance” means the failure to act in accordance with the requirements of the IDEA and its implementing regulations.

7527649v.1

4 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 5 of 25

15. “Nonterminal grade” means any grade level at a particular LEA except for the final grade level served by the LEA (e.g., in a high school serving 9th-12th grade students, students in the 9th, 10th, or 11th grade levels are in a nonterminal grade).
16. “OPSB” refers to the Orleans Parish School Board, a local educational agency under the IDEA, which administers multiple schools within Orleans Parish.
17. “Parent” refers to “parent” as defined by 20 U.S.C. §1401(23).
18. “Plaintiffs’ counsel” refers to any attorney or group of attorneys approved by the Court to provide legal representation to the Settlement Class.
19. “RTI” refers to Response to Intervention, which is a general education program to provide research-based interventions for struggling students who are failing to respond to traditional classroom instruction. Most RTI models involve three “tiers” of increasingly intensive interventions, from Tier I to Tier III.
20. “RSD” refers to the Recovery School District, an intermediate unit of the LDOE subject to the oversight of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 17:1990, the RSD is responsible for overseeing the Type 5 charter schools in its jurisdiction.
21. "School Building Level Committee" (SBLC), or similarly named committee, refers to "a general education, data-driven, decision-making committee" as further defined by La. Adm. Code tit. 28, pt. CI, Louisiana Bulletin 1508, § 303.
22. “Section 504” refers to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.
23. “Settlement Class” or “Class” means Subclass 1, Subclass 2, Subclass 3, Subclass 4, Subclass 5, Subclass 6, and Subclass 7, collectively and as defined below.
24. “Settlement Class Members” or “Class Members” means the set of members of the Class.
25. “Subclass 1” means present and future New Orleans students who have requested a special education evaluation at a New Orleans LEA, and whose request has not or will not be completed because the student is no longer at that particular LEA.
26. “Subclass 2” means present and future New Orleans students who have requested but not been provided with a special education evaluation because they have not completed a “Response to Intervention” program.
27. “Subclass 3” means present and future New Orleans students who have requested but not been provided with a special education evaluation and instead given a Section 504 Plan.

7527649v.1

5 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 6 of 25

28. “Subclass 4” means present and future New Orleans students with disabilities attending RSD direct-run or Type 5 charter schools who have been or will be removed for more than 10 days in a school year without the timely provision of the disciplinary safeguards required by the IDEA.
29. “Subclass 5” means present and future New Orleans students with disabilities who have not or will not be provided a related service that is contained in their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
30. “Subclass 6” means present and future New Orleans students with disabilities who have been or will be denied admission or instructed not to apply to a public school in New Orleans on the basis of their disabilities.
31. “Subclass 7” means present and future New Orleans students with mobility impairments who have been or will be denied access to the programs and services of a New Orleans LEA as a result of structural or architectural barriers.
32. “Substantial Compliance” means a level of compliance that does not significantly deviate from the terms of this Agreement. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, shall not constitute failure to maintain substantial compliance. Temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance.
33. “Type 2 charter school” refers to a new school or a preexisting public school converted and operated as the result of and pursuant to a charter between the nonprofit corporation created to operate the school and the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.
34. “Type 5 charter school” refers to a preexisting public school transferred to the Recovery School District and operated as the result of and pursuant to a charter between a nonprofit corporation and the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

A. CHILD FIND

IV. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS

1. The State Defendants, after conferring with the Defendant-Intervenor, shall develop a schedule identifying the assignment of Child Find responsibilities within New Orleans.
a. The schedule shall allocate responsibility for identifying, locating, and evaluating individuals, aged 3 - 21, suspected of having a disability, including individuals who are: not currently enrolled in school; enrolled in a non-public school in New Orleans; detained in a juvenile detention center or adult correctional facility in New Orleans; and/or housed in a public or private hospital, institution, or other health care facility in New Orleans.

7527649v.1

6 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 7 of 25

b. The schedule shall include procedures for ensuring that an evaluation initiated at one New Orleans LEA is completed within applicable timelines, even where a child moves to another New Orleans LEA.
c. Within thirty (30) days of the assignment of an Independent Monitor, the State Defendants shall submit the schedule to the Independent Monitor for review and approval. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the schedule to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days.
2. The State Defendants shall require that the charter application and renewal processes for Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans require each organization seeking issuance or renewal of a charter to provide a description of the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide pupil appraisal services, including a description of qualified pupil appraisal personnel designated to serve on each organization’s School Building Level Committee.
3. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans identifies new students as eligible for services under the IDEA (“annual new identification rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students who: have Section 504 Plans; are in the RTI process; are under consideration by a School Building Level Committee; failed two (2) or more academic subjects in the prior school year; or are subject to more than ten (10) days of disciplinary removal during the school year. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A.
a. The annual new identification rate for each LEA shall be calculated by dividing the number of students each LEA identifies for initial eligibility under the IDEA between July 1 and June 30 by the total number of students enrolled in the LEA on October 1.
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols.

7527649v.1

7 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 8 of 25
4. The State Defendants shall annually disseminate written guidance to New Orleans LEAs explaining the Child Find responsibilities of Louisiana LEAs. The guidance shall be consistent with the schedule identified in Paragraph IV.A.1.
a. The guidance shall also explain that when a parent requests an evaluation for special education, the LEA must: (1) conduct an initial evaluation of the child; or (2) provide written reason(s) why a disability is not suspected. This guidance shall reference the general sixty (60) business day timelines for an initial evaluation in Louisiana Bulletin 1706, § 302(C) and Louisiana Bulletin 1508. If the LEA does not suspect a disability, this guidance shall explain that the LEA must provide the parent written reasons for its decision within thirty (30) business days of the parent request for evaluation.
b. The written guidance shall explain that an evaluation cannot be delayed because of the student’s current or potential participation in a Response to Intervention (RTI) program.
c. The guidance shall further explain that a Section 504 Plan is not a substitute for a child who is in need of an evaluation under the IDEA.
d. The guidance shall be provided to the chief executive of each LEA in New Orleans annually by August 1 for the duration of this Agreement.
e. The State Defendants shall provide the guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by May 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days.
B. RELATED SERVICES
1. The State Defendants shall require that the charter application and renewal processes for Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans require each organization seeking issuance or renewal of a charter to provide a description of:
a. the organization’s plans for offering the full array of related services to students with qualifying disabilities who are or may come to be enrolled at the charter school, including without limitation the following categories of related services: physical therapy, occupational therapy, counseling services, orientation and mobility services, speech-language pathology, audiology services, school health/nurse services, special transportation, and adaptive physical education; and
b. the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide such services.
2. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans provides related services to students eligible for such services under the IDEA (“service
8 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 9 of 25

provision rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities at the selected LEAs. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A.
a. The service provision rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of minutes of related services per week identified in the IEPs of each student with a disability in an LEA on October 1 by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1.
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols.
C. DISCIPLINE
1. The State Defendants shall, within 60 days of the implementation of this Agreement, review the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans for compliance with the IDEA. The State Defendants shall require that the codes of conduct and/or discipline policies for each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans contain, at a minimum: (a) a written description of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, which should be written in plain language that parents/guardians, students, and the general public can understand; and (b) a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252.
a. For the duration of this Agreement, the State Defendants shall, on the anniversary of the initial reviews described above:
i. require each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to submit a written assurance that the code of conduct and/or discipline policy for the school has not changed since the State Defendants last reviewed the code or policy; or,
ii. review, for compliance with the IDEA, the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans that is unable to provide such an assurance.

7527649v.1

9 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 10 of 25
2. The Defendant-Intervenor shall, within 60 days of the implementation of this Agreement, review the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each school under its jurisdiction for compliance with the IDEA. The Defendant-Intervenor shall require that the codes of conduct and/or discipline policies for each school under its jurisdiction contain, at a minimum: (a) a written description of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, which should be written in plain language that parents/guardians, students, and the general public can understand; and (b) a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252.
a. For the duration of this Agreement, the Defendant-Intervenor shall, on the anniversary of the initial reviews described above:
i. require each school under its jurisdiction to submit a written assurance that the code of conduct and/or discipline policy for the school has not changed since the Defendant-Intervenor last reviewed the code or policy; or,
ii. review, for compliance with the IDEA, the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each school under its jurisdiction that is unable to provide such an assurance.
3. The State Defendants shall provide annual technical assistance to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions and shall develop and broadly disseminate information to parents of students at each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans about the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions. Additionally, the State Defendants shall provide annual professional development to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans on disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities and on best practices to reduce suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities.
a. The State Defendants shall provide the required technical assistance and professional development to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans annually by October 31 for the duration of this Agreement.
b. The State Defendants shall provide information detailing the methods and materials to be used to provide the required technical assistance and professional development to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by June 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the materials to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days.
4. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide annual technical assistance to each school under its jurisdiction regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions and shall develop and broadly disseminate information to parents of students at each school under its jurisdiction about the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions. Additionally, the Defendant-Intervenor shall provide annual professional development to each school
10 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 11 of 25
under its jurisdiction on disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities and on best practices to reduce suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities.
a. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide the required technical assistance and professional development to each school under its jurisdiction annually by October 31 for the duration of this Agreement.
b. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide information detailing the methods and materials to be used to provide the required technical assistance and professional development to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by June 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the materials to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days.
5. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans removes students with disabilities for disciplinary purposes for more than ten (10) cumulative days in an academic year (“extended disciplinary removal rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities who received six (6) or more Office Discipline Referrals or three (3) or more suspensions (in- or out-of-school) in a school year. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A.
a. The extended disciplinary removal rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of students with disabilities who experienced disciplinary removals for more than ten (10) cumulative days between July 1 and June 30 by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1.
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols.
D. ENROLLMENT
1. The State Defendants shall annually disseminate to each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New Orleans policy guidance describing the legal obligations of each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to enroll and serve students with disabilities pursuant to federal law. The State Defendants will request that the principal of each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school acknowledge receipt of this guidance. The guidance will, at a
11 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 12 of 25
minimum, contain: (a) a summary of the legal obligations of the school to provide necessary services and accommodations to students with disabilities; (b) a statement describing the obligations of the school to enroll students with disabilities without regard to their disabilities; (c) a statement advising the school that its staff is prohibited from informing or suggesting to parents of students with disabilities that the parents should not enroll their child in the school because the school does not provide the services or placement necessary for the child or because the child’s disability would be better served at another school; and (d) a statement notifying the principal that he or she can incur personal monetary damages for intentional discrimination and operating in bad faith due to noncompliance with Section 504.
a. The State Defendants shall disseminate the required policy guidance to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans annually by March 1 for the duration of this Agreement.
b. The State Defendants shall provide the policy guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days.
2. The Defendant-Intervenor shall annually disseminate to each school under its jurisdiction policy guidance describing the legal obligations of each school under its jurisdiction to enroll and serve students with disabilities pursuant to federal law. The DefendantIntervenor will require the principal of each school under its jurisdiction to acknowledge receipt of this guidance. The guidance will, at a minimum, contain: (a) a summary of the legal obligations of the school to provide all necessary services and accommodations to students with disabilities; (b) a statement describing the obligations of the school to enroll students with disabilities without regard to their disabilities; (c) a statement advising the school that its staff is prohibited from informing or suggesting to parents of students with disabilities that the parents should not enroll their child in the school because the school does not provide the services or placement necessary for the child or because the child’s disability would be better served at another school; and (d) a statement notifying the principal that he or she can incur personal monetary damages for intentional discrimination and operating in bad faith due to noncompliance with Section 504.
a. The Defendant-Intervenor shall disseminate the required policy guidance to each school under its jurisdiction annually by March 1 for the duration of this Agreement.
b. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide the policy guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent
12 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 13 of 25
Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days.
3. The State Defendants shall require that each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New Orleans annually develops a written description of its special education program, including, at a minimum: (a) the name and contact information of the special education coordinator for the school; (b) a description of how pupil appraisal, special education, and related services are provided by the school; (c) a description of how the school plans to provide the continuum of special education placements for students whose IEP placement is outside of the regular education setting; (d) the current enrollment rate of students with disabilities served by the school; (e) the current suspension rate of students with disabilities served by the school; (f) the number of students with disabilities who are removed for disciplinary reasons for more than 10 school days in one academic year; and (g) an indication of the school’s accessibility to individuals with mobility impairments. The State Defendants shall require that the program descriptions for all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans are made available to parents of students with disabilities at each school site and on each school’s website. RSD’s website will provide a link to the descriptions available on each school website, and parents who express an interest will be guided to this portion of RSD’s website when completing enrollment at an RSD Family Resource Center.
4. The Defendant-Intervenor shall annually develop a written description of OPSB's special education program, including, at a minimum: (a) the name and contact information of special education contacts at the district level and at the school level; (b) a description of how pupil appraisal, special education, and related services are provided; (c) a description of how the OPSB plans to provide the continuum of special education placements for students whose IEP placement is outside of the regular education setting; (d) the current enrollment rate of students with disabilities served by each OPSB school; (e) the current suspension rate of students with disabilities served by each OPSB school; (f) the number of students with disabilities who are removed for disciplinary reasons for more than 10 school days in one academic year; and (g) an indication of the OPSB schools’ accessibility to individuals with mobility impairments. The Defendant-Intervenor shall require that the OPSB special education program description is made available to parents of students with disabilities at each school site, on each school’s website under its jurisdiction, and on OPSB’s website.
5. The State Defendants shall require each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to develop a written complaint investigation protocol describing the school’s process for investigating allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability. The protocol shall include the contact information of the individual at the school responsible for investigating complaints of alleged discrimination; a process by which parents may make complaints; a timeline for the school to conduct an investigation; the steps to be taken or the process by which the school will conduct the investigation; the process by which the school will disseminate the outcome of the investigation; and corrective action that may be undertaken as a result of noncompliance. A summary description of the protocol shall be widely disseminated to parents of students with disabilities enrolled at the school. The complaint investigation protocols shall be developed for the sole purpose
13 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 14 of 25
of investigating allegations of enrollment discrimination arising under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the ADA and shall not supplant the complaint management system or due process complaint procedures pursuant to the IDEA.
a. The State shall develop a model written complaint investigation protocol that meets the requirements identified in this section. This model will be available to any school upon request, and will be provided to each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school by March 1, 2015 and every school year thereafter.
b. Upon receipt of a complaint related to the enrollment practices of Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools, the State will: (i) provide the complainant in writing, either via electronic or U.S. Mail, with the contact information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal services providers; and (ii) where required under IDEA, initiate an investigation of the complaint.
6. The Defendant-Intervenor shall develop a written complaint investigation protocol describing the Defendant-Intervenor’s process for investigating allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability for all schools within its jurisdiction. The protocol shall include the contact information of the division of OPSB responsible for investigating complaints of alleged discrimination; a process by which parents may make complaints; a timeline for the Defendant-Intervenor to conduct an investigation; the steps to be taken or the process by which the Defendant-Intervenor will conduct the investigation; the process by which the Defendant-Intervenor will disseminate the outcome of the investigation; and corrective action that may be undertaken as a result of noncompliance. A summary description of the protocol shall be widely disseminated to parents of students with disabilities enrolled in schools under the jurisdiction of the Defendant-Intervenor. This complaint investigation protocol shall be developed for the sole purpose of investigating allegations of enrollment discrimination pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, and shall not supplant the complaint management system or due process complaint procedures pursuant to the IDEA.
7. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which students with disabilities choose not to reenroll at each LEA in New Orleans each school year (“mobility rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A.
a. The mobility rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of students with disabilities who are enrolled in a nonterminal grade at an LEA in New Orleans between September 1 and May 31 and are not enrolled at the LEA on October 1 of the following school year by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1.
14 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 15 of 25
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols.
V. INDEPENDENT MONITOR
1. The Parties shall cooperatively select an Independent Monitor to oversee implementation of the Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of the implementation of this Agreement, the Plaintiffs and State Defendants shall exchange lists of at least three (3) individuals whom they believe are qualified and available to serve in the capacity of the Independent Monitor. The Plaintiffs and State Defendants shall also provide a copy of such lists to the Defendant-Intervenor. If the Plaintiffs and State Defendants cannot reach consensus regarding the designation of the Independent Monitor, the Parties shall confer within fourteen (14) days of written notice of a disagreement, and an Independent Monitor will be selected by the Plaintiffs and State Defendants therein. If the Plaintiffs and State Defendants do not agree upon an Independent Monitor after conferring, the matter shall be submitted to the Court for resolution. Should the Monitor position become vacant and the Plaintiffs and State Defendants are unable to agree on a replacement using the selection procedures identified above, the Plaintiffs and State Defendants shall recommend candidates to the Court, and the Court will appoint the Monitor from the names submitted by the Plaintiffs and State Defendants.
2. No Party, nor any employee or agent of any party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitor’s activities, reports, findings, or recommendations.
3. Should all the Parties agree that the Monitor is not fulfilling his or her duties in accordance with this Agreement, the Parties may petition the Court for the Monitor’s immediate removal and replacement. One party may unilaterally petition the Court for the Monitor’s removal for good cause, and the other Parties will have the opportunity to respond to the petition. Good cause for the purposes of this Agreement shall mean, but not be limited to, the following: gross neglect of duties; willful misconduct; conflicts of interest; inappropriate personal relationship with any Party or their employees; or any criminal conduct during the pendency of this Agreement.
4. Monitor Qualifications: The Monitor shall have appropriate experience, education, and training related to the subject areas covered in this Agreement.
5. Monitor Access: The Monitor shall have full and complete access to the records and data necessary to determine compliance with the terms of this Agreement. All information obtained by the Monitor shall be maintained in a confidential manner.
6. Monitor Ex Parte Communications: The Monitor shall be permitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications with all Parties.
15 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 16 of 25
7. Monitor Distribution of LDOE Documents, Reports, and Assessments: The Monitor shall provide any reports, assessments, and compliance-related documents within seven (7) days of a request by any Party.
8. Initial Monitor Meeting: Within three (3) weeks of the date that the Independent Monitor is retained, counsel for all parties and the Monitor will schedule a meeting with the Court to discuss the activities of the Monitor under this Consent Judgment.
9. Monitor’s Reports: The Monitor shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with reports describing the steps taken by the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor to implement this Agreement and evaluate the extent to which the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor have complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement.
a. Timing of Reports: The Monitor shall issue an initial report 60 days after the implementation date of this Agreement, and then every 60 days thereafter for the remainder of the first year, and every 120 days thereafter following the end of the first year. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of the students.
b. Content of Reports: The Monitor shall evaluate the state of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance and (2) Noncompliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess compliance and interview any necessary staff or personnel. The Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from the State Defendants or Defendant-Intervenor regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by the Monitor to assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor’s findings.
10. Reports issued by the Monitor shall not be admissible against the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by the State Defendants, the Defendant-Intervenor, or the Plaintiffs’ counsel.
11. Technical Assistance by the Monitor: The Monitor shall provide the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor with technical assistance as requested by the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor. Technical assistance should be reasonable and should not interfere with the Monitor’s ability to assess compliance.
12. Each party shall identify a single point of contact to serve as an Agreement Coordinator throughout the duration of this Agreement. Each party’s Coordinator will serve as a
16 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 17 of 25
liaison between that Party and the Monitor. In addition, the Defendants’ Coordinators will facilitate the provision of data, documents, and materials and provide access to appropriate personnel to the Monitor and Parties, as necessary. Each party shall provide the Monitor and other parties with notice of the initial assignment and any subsequent changes in the assignment of its Agreement Coordinator.
13. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall jointly bear all costs incurred in connection with Section V of the Agreement. The costs shall be divided pro rata between the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor based upon total student enrollment in schools under the jurisdiction of each in New Orleans. The division of costs shall be determined annually based on the October 1 student count.
VI. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
1. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to the Monitor within seven business days of request for inspection and copying. In addition, the State Defendants and the DefendantIntervenor shall maintain and provide to the Monitor upon request, all records or other documents that verify that they have taken the actions described in their compliance reports (e.g., policies, procedures, protocols, checklists, training materials, monitoring reports, investigations, corrective action plans).
2. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall have access to data and documents described within this Agreement and/or developed as a result of this Agreement, including but not limited to any data, reports and other documents examined by the State Defendants during their monitoring activities; the State Defendants’ and the Defendant-Intervenor’s policies and procedures developed in contemplation of this Agreement; and directives, program instructions, and non-privileged communication and training documents. The State Defendants may replace student names contained in the data with unique identifiers and/or may redact student names from records as necessary. At any time during the duration of this Agreement, the Plaintiffs have the right to petition the Court to seek the un-redacted documents.
3. The Parties agree to respond to inquiries, written communications, and requests for information from any other Party or the Monitor in a timely manner.
VII. ENFORCEMENT
1. The Parties agree that the terms of this Agreement shall be submitted to the Court for approval and the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement.
2. During the period that the Agreement is in force, if the Monitor or Plaintiffs’ counsel determines that State Defendants or the Defendant-Intervenor are not taking good faith
17 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 18 of 25

steps towards obtaining Substantial Compliance with the terms of the Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel may initiate contempt or enforcement proceedings against State Defendants or the Defendant-Intervenor, respectively, for an alleged failure to fulfill an obligation under Sections IV through VIII of this Agreement in Court.
3. Before taking judicial action to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall give State Defendants or the Defendant-Intervenor written notice of its intent to initiate such proceedings, and the Parties shall engage in good-faith discussions to resolve the dispute and may petition the Court for a status conference to assist in resolution. If the dispute has not been resolved within 30 days of Plaintiffs’ written notice to State Defendants or the Defendant-Intervenor, Plaintiffs’ counsel may take judicial action to initiate contempt or other enforcement proceedings.
VIII. CONSTRUCTION, IMPLEMENTATION, AND TERMINATION
1. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall implement all reforms, as designated within the provisions of this Agreement, that are necessary to effectuate this Agreement. The implementation of this Agreement will begin immediately upon the Effective Date.
2. The State Defendants shall be released from the terms of this Agreement when they have achieved Substantial Compliance with each provision of the Agreement for which they are assigned responsibility; have maintained Substantial Compliance for a period of two consecutive years; and subject to Court approval.
3. The Defendant-Intervenor shall be released from the terms of this Agreement when it has achieved Substantial Compliance with each provision of the Agreement for which it is assigned responsibility; have maintained Substantial Compliance for a period of two consecutive years; and subject to Court approval.
4. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry out any requirements of this Agreement, State Defendants or the Defendant-Intervenor shall notify the Monitor in writing within seven days after State Defendants or the DefendantIntervenor become aware of unforeseen circumstance and its impact on the Defendants’ ability to perform under the Agreement. The notice shall describe the cause of the failure to perform and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.
5. This Agreement, including all addenda, shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the Parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein, in this litigation or in any other proceeding.

7527649v.1

18 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 19 of 25

6. This Agreement shall be applicable to, and binding upon, all Parties, their officers, agents, employees, assigns, and their successors in office.
7. Failure by any party to enforce this entire Agreement or any provision thereof with respect to any deadline or any other provision herein shall not be construed as a waiver of the party’s right to enforce other deadlines or provisions of this Agreement.
8. If any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
IX. CLASS NOTICE
1. Promptly after this Agreement has been fully executed, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall initiate a joint motion to the Court for entry of the Order for Notice and Hearing, substantially in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A. In connection with that application, Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall apply to the Court for preliminary approval of this Agreement and for a finding that the Class, as defined above, should be certified for settlement purposes. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall also request that the Court set a date for a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement no earlier than February 9, 2015 and to approve the Settlement Notice, in substantially the form annexed hereto as Exhibit B.
2. The State Defendants shall cause the notice to be published one time in The TimesPicayune and The New Orleans Advocate, in substantially the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C as soon as practicable after the Settlement Notice is approved, but in no event more than five (5) business days after such approval.
3. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall within the later of five (5) business days of the date of the Court’s Order for Notice and Hearing and January 8, 2015, cause a one-page summary of the Settlement Notice to be posted in all public schools in New Orleans until at least February 8, 2015.
4. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall within ten (10) business days of the date of the Court’s Order for Notice and Hearing cause a one-page summary of the Settlement Notice to be mailed via first class mail to the proposed Settlement Class.
5. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall within five (5) business days of the date of the Court’s Order for Notice and Hearing cause the Settlement Notice to be posted prominently on the websites of LDOE, BESE, and OPSB until at least February 8, 2015.
6. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall within five (5) business days of the date of the Court’s Order for Notice and Hearing cause the Settlement Notice to be posted on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center, at its own cost, until at least February 8, 2015.

7527649v.1

19 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 20 of 25
7. Plaintiffs’ Counsel may disseminate the Settlement Notice to other media outlets, provide it to other community organizations, or otherwise disseminate the Settlement Notice as it sees fit, all at its own cost.
8. The State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor shall bear all the costs incurred in connection with subparagraphs 2-4, with State Defendants responsible for all costs associated with activities pertaining to non-OPSB schools, LDOE, and BESE.
X. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
1. The State Defendants will seek a legislative appropriation in the 2015 legislative session for $700,000.00, not to be paid from any state or federal education funds designated for the education of students with disabilities, to pay the State Defendants’ share of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. State Defendants shall use their best efforts with the Louisiana legislature to obtain a sufficient appropriation to make payment to Plaintiffs by the close of 2015. The State Defendants’ payment of $700,000.00 shall be in full satisfaction of its share of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs for all purposes under this agreement.
2. If the Louisiana legislature does not appropriate sufficient funds to pay State Defendants' share of Plaintiffs' attorneys’ fees and costs, the State Defendants and the Plaintiffs agree to meet and confer to discuss options for fulfillment of this element of the Agreement. If the State Defendants and Plaintiffs cannot resolve this matter directly, they will seek non-binding mediation to discuss options regarding the State Defendants' share of fees and costs, including, if agreed to by Plaintiffs, the timing of payments to Plaintiffs beyond 2015. If no such agreement can be reached, Plaintiffs may seek an action for payment of said $700,000 in accordance with applicable jurisprudence. However, any such payment shall not be taken from state or federal education funds designated for the education of students with disabilities.
3. Within 180 days of the approval of the State Defendants’ requested appropriation, the Defendant-Intervenors will make payment to Plaintiffs’ Counsel in the amount of $100,000.00 for Defendant-Intervenors’ share of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs. The Defendant-Intervenors' payment of $100,000.00 shall be in full satisfaction of its share of Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs for all purposes under this agreement.
XI. MEDIA
1. The parties and their counsel agree to issue a joint public statement concerning this Agreement at the time it is presented to the Court for approval (“joint statement”). The joint statement will indicate that the case has been resolved by mutual agreement of the parties and will portray the settlement and all parties in a positive light. The joint statement will be widely distributed and placed on the Defendants’ and counsel for the Plaintiffs’ respective websites. To the extent practicable, any party offering a public
20 of 23
7527649v.1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 21 of 25
comment concerning this Agreement separate from the joint statement shall use reasonable efforts to notify the other parties of the form, nature, and extent of the press release or public comment prior to its issuance. None of the parties will make any public statement regarding this Agreement that in any way disparages or criticizes another party or the Agreement.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS
1. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, and all such counterparts together shall constitute one and the same agreement. This Agreement may be executed by facsimile or by original. A facsimile transmission of a signed original shall have the same effect as delivery of a signed original.

7527649v.1

21 of 23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 22 of 25

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 23 of 25
FOR THE PLAINTIFF SETTLEMENT CLASS:
Eden B. Heilman Jennifer Coco Jerri Katzerman SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER 1055 St. Charles Avenue, Ste. 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 (504) 486-8982
FOR THE STATE DEFENDANTS:

J()an Ellen Hunt General Counsel LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. Box 94064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9064 (225) 342-3572
FOR THE DEFENDANT-INTERVENOR, ORLEANS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD:

Wayne T. Stewart Robert L. Hammonds HAMMONDS, SILLS, ADKINS & GUICE, LLP 2431 S. Acadian Thruway, Ste 600 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 (225) 923-3462

7527649v.l

22 of23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 24 of 25

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 296 Filed 03/25/15 Page 25 of 25
So ORDERED this ___________ day of _________M_a_r_c_h_________, 2015.
______________________________ The Honorable Jay C. Zainey United States District Judge

7527649v.1

23 of 23

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 88
Office of the Independent Monitors P.B., et al., v. John White, et al. (Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049)
Status Report June 3, 2016 Pursuant to Section V(8) of the Consent Judgment (CJ), the Independent Monitors shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with reports describing the steps taken by the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor to implement the Agreement and evaluate the extent to which the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor have complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. Pursuant to Section V(8)(a), the Monitor shall issue an initial report every 120 days after the implementation of the Agreement, and then every 180 days thereafter. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of the students. Pursuant to Section V(8)(b) of the CJ, the Independent Monitors shall evaluate the state of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance and (2) Noncompliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess compliance and interview any necessary staff or personnel. The Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from the State Defendants or Defendant-Intervenor regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by the Monitor to assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor’s findings. Pursuant to Section V(9) of the CJ, reports issued by the Monitor
1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 88
shall not be admissible against the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by the State Defendants, the Defendant-Intervenor, or the Plaintiff’s counsel.
Mr. Mark Mlawer was initially appointed as the Independent Monitor (IM) and provided correspondence to all Parties on October 19, 2015 following a review of documents related to Sections IV(A)(1), IV(C)(1), and IV(D)(5) of the CJ. Fluency Plus, LLC personnel (Dr. Dale Bailey, Dr. Tony Doggett, Mr. Ken Swindol, and Mr. William Swindol) were appointed as Independent Monitors (IMs) in January 2016 following the resignation of Mr. Mlawer.
The draft status report is organized by each Substantive Provision section of the CJ and each section begins with the language taken directly from the Agreement identified in italics. Where appropriate, language from Addendum A (Monitoring Protocols) to the CJ was also incorporated into the status report. The IMs then provide a report of current findings based on a review of materials submitted by the LDOE, Recovery School District (RSD), OPSB, and each charter school association or charter school. The IMs also reviewed correspondence from the Plaintiff’s counsel and the former IM, Mark Mlawer, when writing the status report. A status of compliance section and a recommendations section follows each report of current findings in the status report. An appendix has also been provided with the status report which includes model templates provided for review by the LDOE during the spring 2016 school term.
2

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 88
SECTION IV(A) CHILD FIND (pp. 6-8 of the CJ) 1. The State Defendants, after conferring with the Defendant-Intervener, shall
develop a schedule identifying the assignment of Child Find responsibilities within New Orleans (p. 6 of the CJ).
a. The schedule shall allocate responsibility for identifying, locating, and evaluating individuals, aged 3 - 21, suspected of having a disability, including individuals who are: not currently enrolled in school; enrolled in a non-public school in New Orleans; detained in a juvenile detention center or adult correctional facility in New Orleans; and/or housed in a public or private hospital, institution, or other health care facility in New Orleans (p. 6 of the CJ). Current Findings One of the components of the Initial Child Find Schedule (developed in the summer of 2015) was a table which outlined the responsibility for conducting child find activities for specific groups of children within Orleans Parish. The table was reviewed by the former IM, Mark Mlawer, on October 10, 2015 and Plaintiff’s counsel on October 28, 2015. Recommendations were made by the former IM to provide more specific language concerning correctional facilities and other health care facilities under Section IV(A)(1)(a). All parties agreed to the changes and the updated table of responsibility was included as part of a document entitled “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance.” (See Appendix A for the model template). Plaintiff’s counsel also requested that the IMs verify if the final template was disseminated to all LEAs (See memo dated February 2, 2016) and LDOE agreed to this request. The current IMs have verified all charter schools have attested to receiving the “PB v White - Child Find Written
3

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 88

Guidance” document as of April 4, 2016 (See details in Section 4 below).
Status of Compliance Based on a review of the document entitled, “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” and verification of the receipt by the LEAs of the document (see Section 4), the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A)(1)(a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.
Recommendations The IMs recommend that each LEA (including future charters not currently in existence) continue to verify receipt of the “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” (or any future versions of the template) document through attestations each school year by July 1st in order to maintain Substantial Compliance with this section of the CJ.

b.

The schedule shall include procedures for ensuring that an evaluation

initiated at one New Orleans LEA is completed within applicable timelines, even where

a child moves to another New Orleans LEA (p. 7 of the CJ).

Current Findings The procedures as outlined in Section IV(A)(1)(b) of the CJ, are included within the document entitled “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” under the title “Timely completion of Evaluation for Transferring Students.” However, at this time, the procedures delineated in this document are under review by both LDOE and Plaintiff’s
4

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 88
counsel. The revised version is to be submitted to the IMs upon completion. Specifically, the LDOE’s pending edits to the document are to reflect the following substantive changes: (1) the technical aspects of handling transfer student evaluations in the Special Education Reporting System (SER), (2) the usual contents of a comprehensive student record, and (3) measures to facilitate student records transfers through the centralized enrollment structure. The language will be incorporated into the current Child Find Guidance Document, and it will be released to all charter LEAs prior to the start of the 2016-2017 school year based on Minutes of the February 18, 2016 meeting with all parties submitted by LDOE on February 19, 2016. It is noted the LDOE submitted the initial document to all LEAs, and the IMs have verified that all charter schools have attested to receiving the initial version of “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” document as of April 4, 2016 (See additional details in Section 4 below). Status of Compliance The LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(1)(b) of the CJ based upon dissemination of the current version of “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” to all LEAs for the 2015-2016 school year.
Recommendations The LDOE shall submit the final version of the “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” document to the IMs as soon as is practicable. The IM shall verify the dissemination of the updated version of the document for the 2016-2017 school year.
5

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 88
c. Within thirty (30) days of the assignment of an Independent Monitor, the State Defendants shall submit the schedule to the Independent Monitor for review and approval. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the schedule to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 7 of the CJ).
Current Findings The document entitled “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” was provided for review by the LDOE on January 15, 2016. Plaintiff’s counsel requested edits to this model template in a letter dated February 1, 2016 and discussed the requested changes in a meeting with LDOE counsel, OPSB counsel, and the IMs at the LDOE on February 18, 2016. As of the date of this status report, the procedures delineated in this document are under review by both LDOE and Plaintiff’s counsel and an updated version will be submitted to the IMs upon completion.
Status of Compliance The LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(1)(c) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. The timeline for commentary and revision of the schedule to the IMs and the periods for commentary included within “PB v White Child Find Written Guidance,” have been extended by mutual agreement of all parties.
6

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 88
Recommendations The IM will review the final version of the “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” document as soon as is practicable and reinitiate the timeline established in IV(A)(1)(c) of the CJ. The IMs will provide an update regarding the revised document in the biannual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
2. The State Defendants shall require that the charter application and renewal processes for Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans require each organization seeking issuance or renewal of a charter to provide a description of the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide pupil appraisal services, including a description of qualified pupil appraisal personnel designated to serve on each organization’s School Building Level Committee (p. 7 of CJ).
Current Findings The IMs and all parties received a document entitled “Special Education Program Description Template” (See Appendix A for the model template) from LDOE on January 15, 2016 containing a copy of the template and an overview and instructions for use by school charter personnel to document the full array of pupil appraisal support services including appropriate Child Find activities. Specifically, the elements of interest in the template include each LEA’s use of Response to Intervention, the role and function of the School Building Level Committee, and the role and function of the appraisal team.
Following a request from the IMs on May 9, 2016, we received a copy of the presentation 7

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 88
entitled “SPLC Settlement Workshop” provided by the LDOE on December 10-11, 2015 to each charter school association and related sign-in sheets on May 10, 2016. A review of this presentation revealed that the LDOE addressed appropriate completion of all sections of the template with charter school attendees during this workshop.
A copy of the “Special Education Program Description Template” used by charter school personnel during the 2015-2016 school year is located in the Appendix. A review of Section D of the template by the IMs during the spring 2016 school term revealed that the document satisfied the requirements listed in Sections IV. A(1)(a) of the CJ listed above. In relation, the Plaintiff’s counsel reported in a letter to the LDOE dated February 1, 2016 that they had no additional concerns with the template document as related to these two sections of the Agreement. The LDOE required each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to complete and submit the template to the department by January 29, 2016. As a result, fifty-nine (59) completed templates were provided for review to the IMs on April 22, 2016, by Recovery School District (RSD) personnel. A review of all completed templates by the IMs revealed that 59 of 59 (100%) charter schools completed the Appraisal Team component of Section D of the 2015-2106 school year version of the Special Education Program Description Template as directed in the accompanying LDOE overview and instructions document and as required by Section IV(A)(2) of the CJ. The IMs also evaluated the accuracy of the information contained within Section D of the template and provided specific feedback for each LEA to the LDOE on June 2, 2016 for dissemination to the charter schools during the summer 2016 term. A review of the signin sheets from the SPLC workshop held on December 10-11, 2015 by the LDOE or
8

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 88
attestation forms provided with the materials submitted for each charter received from the RSD on April 22, 2016 revealed that one or more representatives from all charter school associations participated in this professional development.
The IMs and all parties also received a schedule for charter school applications and renewals in correspondence from the LDOE dated January 25, 2016. According to this correspondence, all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans were required to submit the completed Special Education Program Description Template including the ten charter schools that were scheduled for charter renewals during the 2015-2016 school year. As previously reported in this section, all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools completed Section D of the template as directed by the LDOE and relevant sections of the CJ.
According to the correspondence received on January 25, 2016 from the LDOE, no new Type 2 or Type 5 charter schools are planned for the 2016-2017 school year in New Orleans and nine (9) charter schools are scheduled for renewal during the 2016-2017 school year. Applications for the 2017-2018 school year were due on March 4, 2016 for forwarding to third party evaluators. All schools scheduled to open during the 2017-2018 school year will be required to complete the “Special Education Program Description Template” as part of their application process. The Plaintiff’s counsel requested in a letter dated February 1, 2016 to the IMs, LDOE, and OPSB that the IMs review all completed templates for the nine (9) schools up for renewal during the 2016-2017 school year prior to submission of LDOE’s renewal recommendations in November/December 2016 and
9

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 88
those schools who submit applications for the 2017-2018 school year prior to the LDOE’s recommendations on July 30, 2016. The LDOE consented to this request in a meeting held on February 18, 2016 at the LDOE with all parties and the IMs, which is verified in the minutes for this meeting submitted to all parties by the LDOE on February 19, 2016.
Status of Compliance The LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(2) for the 2015-2016 school year.
Recommendations The LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit a Special Education Program Description Template by July 1st for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. The IMs will continue to review all completed Special Education Program Description templates for existing charter schools, new charter schools, or charter schools scheduled for renewal during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years prior to the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE at the intervals designated above to ensure that the template meets compliance with this section of the CJ.
3. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans identifies new students as eligible for services under the IDEA (“annual new identification rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of 10

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 88

students who: have Section 504 Plans; are in the RTI process; are under consideration by a School Building Level Committee; failed two (2) or more academic subjects in the prior school year; or are subject to more than ten (10) days of disciplinary removal during the school year. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 7 of CJ).

a.

The annual new identification rate for each LEA shall be calculated by

dividing the number of students each LEA identifies for initial eligibility under the IDEA

between July 1 and June 30 by the total number of students enrolled in the LEA on

October 1 (p. 7 of CJ).

Current Findings The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone
11

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 88

interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff

interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The IMs were

provided a sample notification email for review. The LDOE also conducted planning calls

with each identified charter during late January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the

staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format, and desk file review

process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on April 26, 2016 that

included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools. The “New Identification

%” column used the formula specified in Addendum A of the CJ. A review of the

spreadsheet and related materials from the LDOE by the IMs revealed that the following

three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring as required in this section of

the CJ.

The three schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 semester in the

area of Child Find were:

1.

Joseph A Craig Charter School

2.

Lake Area New Tech Early College High School

3.

Sophie B. Wright Charter School

Status of Compliance

Based on a review of the documents submitted by LDOE and verification of the

calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial

Compliance with Section IV(A)(3)(a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.

Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to follow the targeted monitoring procedures as outlined in this
12

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 88
section of the CJ and the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to review charter selection and verify LDOE calculations as required by this section of the CJ.
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 7 of CJ).
Current Findings The LDOE provided the IMs with a list of identified students for each LEA during an onsite visit to the Department on March 22-24, 2016. A total of ten (10) students were selected by the LDOE for review from each of the schools selected for monitoring (e.g., Joseph A Craig Charter School, Lake Area New Tech Early College High School, and Sophie B. Wright Charter School). However, contrary to Section A(2)(a) of the Addendum to the CJ which required a random, representative sample of students, it should be noted the sample provided consisted solely of students with Section 504 Plans. In addition, only 32% (10 of 31) of students selected were classified as initial 504 evaluations and the remaining students were 504 re-evaluations.
Between March 22, 2016 and May 5, 2016 both LDOE monitoring personnel and the IMs completed desk file reviews of each of the ten (10) student files selected for each of the
13

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 88
three (3) LEAs listed above using the Child Find protocol located in the Addendum of the CJ. In relation, the LDOE provided each charter with an additional document entitled “Child Find Monitoring Checklist” to assist them in the submission of required documents for the desk file review. Pursuant to Section A(4)(a) and A(4)(b) of Addendum A of the CJ, the LDOE was required to conduct interviews with at least one (1) general education teacher of students with disabilities, one (1) special education teacher, one (1) general education administrator, and one (1) special education administrator or coordinator at each LEA selected for targeted monitoring. The LDOE was required to conduct staff interviews using the Child Find portion of the monitoring instrument.
The LDOE submitted the phone interview schedule for all charter schools across all four areas of targeting monitoring to the IMs on February 4, 2016. The staff interview for Sophie B. Wright was conducted on February 16, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff. The staff interview for Lake Area New Tech Early College High School was conducted on February 18, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff. The staff interview for Joseph A. Craig School was conducted on February 24, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff. The results of the phone interviews were submitted by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification on by March 4, 2016. In relation, the list of participants for each charter school was sent by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification by May 10, 2016.
Pursuant to Section A(5)(a) of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE shall conduct on-site
14

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 88
compliance monitoring at the LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the event that LDOE’s review of information gathered through the student file review and staff interview processes: (1) is insufficient to make determinations of legal compliance, or (2) indicates that on-site observations or visual inspection of school facilities is necessary to make determinations of legal compliance. LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs determined in an onsite meeting at the Department on April 28, 2016 that school visits would not be necessary for the identified charter schools to make determinations of legal compliance in the area of Child Find.
As agreed upon in the meeting with all parties in Judge Jay Zainey’s chambers on January 6, 2016, aggregated data from the protocol reviews will be presented in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. However, a general overview of protocol findings will be presented here. Based on a review of student file reviews using the Child Find protocol, both the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs observed concerns with SBLCs obtaining permission for initial evaluation with reasonable a time frame, participation in the RTI process, collecting sufficient data to evaluate interventions, obtaining parental consent, the use of a variety of assessment instruments to make decisions, and obtaining information from parents to assist in making decisions. Further, IMs were also concerned with SBLCs decisions in regard to determining from reviewing a student’s educational records that he/she does not require specially designed instruction.
Status of Compliance – Targeted Monitoring Based on a review of the documents submitted by each identified charter school and the
15

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 88
LDOE and completion of the student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Child Find protocol, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV(A)(3)(b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year because the student files selected for review during the spring 2016 term did not include a random, representative sample of students who met the other potential requirements as outlined in Section A(2)(a) of Addendum A of the CJ. In order to demonstrate Substantial Compliance with this section of the CJ, the LDOE and IMs will need to review a random, representative sample of students who meet all requirements as outlined in Section A(2)(a) on page 1 of the Addendum A to the CJ (e.g., students who have 504 Plans, are in the RTI process, are under consideration by a School Building Level Committee; failed two (2) or more academic subjects in the prior school year; or are subject to more than ten (10) days of disciplinary removal during the school year) during future file reviews for identified LEAs. It is important to note that the LDOE agreed to follow the student selection process required by the CJ during future protocol reviews during an on-site meeting with the IMs held on April 28, 2016.
Status of Compliance – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Action The LDOE informed the IMs during a phone conference held on June 2, 2016 that monitoring reports for the charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 school term have been completed. The LDOE also reported that cover letters, complete monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, and corrective action plan templates will be provided to each LEA and IMs on June 8, 2016 which is consistent with LDOE
16

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 17 of 88
timelines for issuing this information to the LEAs. The LDOE confirmed during the phone conference that areas of noncompliance identified by both LDOE personnel and the IMs during the protocol reviews and phone interviews were used in completing the monitoring reports, making determinations regarding noncompliance, and making recommendations for corrective action. LDOE personnel will be providing technical assistance directly to each LEA in developing the corrective action plans during the first two weeks of June 2016. In relation, the IMs shall receive each LEAs recommended corrective action plan by June 30, 2016 for review and comment. The IMs will provide an update regarding the monitoring reports and corrective action plans for each LEA in the report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. Specifically, the IMs will review if the LDOE required each LEA to “undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 9 of CJ). As such, the IMs will evaluate the status of compliance for LEA noncompliance determinations and corrective actions identified by the LDOE after reviewing the monitoring reports and corrective action plans.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to perform student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Child Find protocol as outlined this section of the CJ and in the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ. The IMs will review monitoring reports and corrective action plans to ensure that the concerns identified during protocol reviews by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs were
17

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 18 of 88
addressed in forthcoming monitoring reports for the three (3) identified LEAs targeted for monitoring in the area of Child Find during the spring 2016 term. In addition, the IMs recommend for consideration by all parties that staff interviews and student file reviews be conducted on site using the Child Find protocol for LEAs identified for future reviews to assist in the acquisition of materials required to complete the reviews and to have access to school personnel during the file review process. This recommendation is being made to assist the IMs and LDOE personnel in completing the student file reviews in a timely and cost effective manner as the desk review process required approximately 6 weeks during the spring 2016 term. On-site visits will also allow the IMs and/or LDOE to have quick access to school personnel to assist in obtaining any additional information that may be needed to make determinations regarding compliance with this section of the CJ. The IMs recommends for consideration by all parties the staff interview process and student file reviews be completed onsite during the fall 2016 term by both LDOE personnel and IMs for LEAs identified for targeted reviews based on an analysis of 2015-2016 child find data.
4. The State Defendants shall annually disseminate written guidance to New Orleans LEAs explaining the Child Find responsibilities of Louisiana LEAs. The guidance shall be consistent with the schedule identified in Paragraph IV.A.1 (p. 8 of CJ).
a. The guidance shall also explain that when a parent requests an evaluation for special education, the LEA must: (1) conduct an initial evaluation of the child; or (2) provide written reason(s) why a disability is not suspected. This guidance shall reference the general sixty (60) business day timelines for an initial evaluation in Louisiana Bulletin 1706, §
18

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 19 of 88
302(C) and Louisiana Bulletin 1508. If the LEA does not suspect a disability, this guidance shall explain that the LEA must provide the parent written reasons for its decision within thirty (30) business days of the parent request for evaluation (p. 8 of CJ).
b. The written guidance shall explain that an evaluation cannot be delayed because of the student’s current or potential participation in a Response to Intervention (RTI) program (p. 8 of CJ).
c. The guidance shall further explain that a Section 504 Plan is not a substitute for a child who is in need of an evaluation under the IDEA (p. 8 of CJ).
d. The guidance shall be provided to the chief executive of each LEA in New Orleans annually by August 1 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 8 of CJ). e. The State Defendants shall provide the guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by May 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 8 of CJ).
Current Findings The document entitled “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance” was created and disseminated to all LEAs in accordance with 4(A)(1) and 4(A)(4) of the CJ. A
19

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 20 of 88
representative of each LEA was required to attest in writing to receipt of the document per request of Plaintiff’s counsel using the form entitled “PB v White – Attestation of Review of Child Find Written Guidance.” As of April 22, 2016, all LEAs submitted signed Attestations for the 2015-2016 school year.
As of the date of this status report, the procedures delineated in this document are under review by both LDOE and Plaintiff’s counsel and an updated version is to be submitted to the IMs upon completion. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel will propose language addressing their concerns about the Response to Intervention and Section 504 content in the existing “Child Find Written Guidance Document.” Any language approved by the LDOE, OPSB, Plaintiff’s counsel and IMs will be incorporated into the revised “Child Find Written Guidance Document” which will be released to all charter LEAs prior to the start of the 2016-2017 school year based agreements made by all Parties during a meeting held at the LDOE on February 18, 2016.
Status of Compliance The LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(4) for the 2015-2016 school year based upon attestation of receipt of the current version of “PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance.”
Recommendations Following revision to the document entitled, “PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance” collaboratively by the LDOE and Plaintiff’s counsel, the IMs will review the model
20

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 21 of 88 template and provide feedback to all parties. The status of compliance with Section IV(A)(4) will be reassessed after the LDOE has submitted the revised model template to all LEAs. The IMs will verify dissemination of the revised document through a review of signed attestations from each LEA after the LDOE disseminates the updated “PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance” document during the summer 2016 term. An update regarding compliance with the activities required in this section of the CJ will be provided in the bi-annual status report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
21

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 22 of 88
SECTION IV(B) RELATED SERVICES (pp. 8-9 of the CJ) 1. The State Defendants shall require that the charter application and renewal
processes for Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans require each organization seeking issuance or renewal of a charter to provide a description of: a. the organization’s plans for offering the full array of related services to students with qualifying disabilities who are or may come to be enrolled at the charter school, including without limitation the following categories of related services: physical therapy, occupational therapy, counseling services, orientation and mobility services, speechlanguage pathology, audiology services, school health/nurse services, special transportation, and adaptive physical education; and b. the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide such services (p. 8 of CJ).
Current Findings The IMs and all parties received a document entitled “Special Education Program Description Template” from The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) on January 15, 2016 containing a copy of the template and an overview and instructions for use by school charter personnel to document the full array of related services to students with qualifying disabilities and the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide related services to identified students. Following a request from the IMs on May 9, 2016, we also received a copy of the presentation entitled “SPLC Settlement Workshop” provided by the LDOE on December 10-11, 2015 to each charter school
22

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 23 of 88
association and related sign-in sheets on May 10, 2016. A review of this presentation revealed that the LDOE addressed appropriate completion of all sections of the template with charter school attendees during this workshop.
A copy of the Special Education Program Description Template used by charter school personnel during the 2015-2016 school year is located in the Appendix for review by interested parties. A review of Section D of the template by the IMs during the spring 2016 school term revealed that the document satisfied the requirements listed in Sections IV.B(1)(a) and IV.B(1)(b) of the Consent Judgment listed above. In relation, the Plaintiff’s counsel reported in a letter to the LDOE dated February 1, 2016 that they had no additional concerns with the template document as related to these two sections of the Agreement. The LDOE required each Type 2 or Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans to complete and submit the template to the department by January 29, 2016. As a result, fifty-nine (59) completed templates were provided for review to the IMs on April 22, 2016 by the Recovery School District (RSD). Specifically, completed templates were provided for five (5) Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) charter schools including International School of Louisiana, International High School, Lycee’ Francais, Milestone Academy, New Orleans Military and Maritime High School and twelve (12) charter associations under the direction of RSD including Algiers Charter School Association (6 schools including Martin Behrman, Eisenhower, W.J. Fischer Accelerated, McDonogh #32, Algiers Tech, and Landry-Walker High School), ARISE Schools (2 schools including ARISE Academy and Mildred Osborne), Choice Foundation (3 schools including Esperanza, Lafayette Academy, and McDonogh #42),
23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 24 of 88
Collegiate Academies (3 schools including Carver Collegiate, Carver Prep, and SciAcademy), Crescent City Schools (3 schools including Akili Academy, Paul Habans, and Harriet Tubman), FirstLine Schools (5 schools including Arthur Ashe, Phillis Wheatley, Samuel J. Green, Langston Hughes, and J.S. Clark Prep), Friends of King (1 school including Joseph A. Craig), KIPP: New Orleans (9 schools including KIPP Believe Primary, KIPP Believe College Prep, KIPP Central City Primary, KIPP Central City Academy, KIPP East Community, KIPP McDonogh #15 Primary, KIPP McConogh #15 middle, KIPP New Orleans Leadership Academy, and KIPP Renaissance), New Beginnings (4 schools including Pierre A. Capdau, Gentilly Terrace, Medard H. Nelson, Lake Area New Tech), New Orleans College Prep (Lawrence D. Crocker, Sylvanie Williams, Cohen College Prep), ReNEW (6 schools including Cultural Arts Academy, Dolores T. Aaron, McDonogh City Park, Schaumburg, SciTech, and Accelerated), and nine (9) Non-Network Charters including Coghill Accelerated, Edgar P. Harney, Morris Jeff, James M. Singleton, Success Prep, Fannie C. Williams, Crescent Leadership, The NET Charter, and Sophie B. Wright.
A review of all completed templates by the IMs revealed that 59 of 59 (100%) charter schools completed the related service components of Section D of the 2015-2105 school year version of the Special Education Program Description Template as directed in the accompanying LDOE overview and instructions document and as required by Sections IV(B)(1)(a) and IV(B)(1)(b) of the CJ. The IMs also evaluated the accuracy of the information contained within Section D of the template and provided specific feedback for each LEA to the LDOE on June 2, 2016 for dissemination to the charter schools
24

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 25 of 88
during the summer 2016 term. A review of the sign-in sheets from the SPLC workshop held on December 10-11, 2015 by the LDOE or attestation forms provided with the materials submitted for each charter received from the RSD on April 22, 2016 revealed that one or more representatives from all charter school associations were exposed to this professional development.
In relation, Dr. Wayne Stewart, Attorney, Hammonds, Sills, Adkins & Guice, LLP and counsel for Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) provided a completed copy of the Special Education Program Description Template on February 18, 2016 during a meeting with all parties and the IMs held at the LDOE. A review of this document by the IMs revealed that the related service components of Section D of the 2015-2016 school year version of the Special Education Program Description Template were completed as directed in the accompanying LDOE overview and instructions document and as required by Sections IV(B)(1)(a) and IV(B)(1)(b) of the CJ. The IMs also evaluated the accuracy of the information contained within Section D of the template and provided specific feedback to OPSB counsel on April 4, 2016.
The IMs and all parties also received a schedule for charter school applications and renewals in correspondence from the LDOE dated January 25, 2016. According to this correspondence, all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans were required to submit the completed Special Education Program Description Template including the ten charter schools that were scheduled for charter renewals during the 2015-2016 school year. As previously reported in this section, all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools
25

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 26 of 88
completed Section D of the template as directed by the LDOE and relevant sections of the CJ. According to the correspondence received on January 25, 2016 from the LDOE, no new Type 2 or Type 5 charter schools are planned for the 2016-2017 school year in New Orleans and nine (9) charter schools are scheduled for renewal during the 20162017 school year. Each of these schools will be required to complete the required template as part of their renewal process prior to submission of renewal recommendations to BESE in November/December 2016. Applications for the 2017-2018 school year were due on March 4, 2016 for forwarding to third party evaluators and LDOE recommendations will be sent to BESE by July 30, 2016. All schools scheduled to open during the 2017-2018 school year will be required to complete the Special Education Program Description Template as part of their pre-opening process. The Plaintiffs requested in a letter dated February 1, 2016 to the IMs, LDOE, and OPSB that the IMs review all completed templates for the nine (9) schools up for renewal during the 20162017 school year prior to submission of LDOE’s renewal recommendations to BESE in November/December 2016 and those schools who submit applications for the 2017-2018 school year prior to the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE on July 30, 2016. The LDOE consented to this request in a meeting held on February 18, 2016 at the LDOE with all parties and the IMs which is verified in the minutes for this meeting submitted to all parties by the LDOE on February 19, 2016.
Status of Compliance Based on a review of the completed Special Education Program Description Templates and related materials, the LDOE and OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance
26

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 27 of 88
with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.
Recommendations The IMs and LDOE agreed during the phone conference held on June 2, 2016 that each LEA shall use the feedback to make any needed corrections and submit the revised templates to the LDOE before June 30, 2016. The LDOE shall then submit the revised templates to the IMs for review prior to placement of the templates on each charter school’s website. The LDOE also agreed to establish links to the complete Special Education Program Description templates from the RSD website and enrollnola (OneApp) website. As such, the LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit a Special Education Program Description Template by the required timelines for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. The IMs will continue to review all completed Special Education Program Description templates for existing charter schools, new charter schools, or charter schools scheduled for renewal during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years prior to the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE at the intervals designated above to ensure that the templates meet compliance with this section of the CJ.
2. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans provides related services to students eligible for such services under the IDEA (“service provision rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities at the selected LEAs. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, 27

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 28 of 88

staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 9 of CJ).

a.

The service provision rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of

minutes of related services per week identified in the IEPs of each student with a disability

in an LEA on October 1 by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the

LEA on October 1 (p. 9 of CJ).

Current Findings The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements of the related requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The IMs were provided a sample notification email for review. The LDOE also conducted planning calls with each identified charter during January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format,
28

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 29 of 88
and desk file review process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on 4/26/16 that included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools along with three additional columns populating the Related Service Minutes per Week, October 2014 IDEA Student Count, and Related Service Minutes Per Week Per Student using the formula specified on page 3 in Addendum A of the CJ. A review of the database and related materials from the LDOE by the IMs revealed that the following three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring as required in this section of the CJ. The three schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 semester in the area of Related Services were: 1. Algiers Technology Academy (grades 9-12; Algiers Charter School Association) 2. International High School of New Orleans (grades 9-12; BESE Charter) 3. Landry-Walker High School (grades 9-12; Algiers Charter School Association)
Status of Compliance Based on a review of the documents submitted by LDOE and verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(2)(a) of the CJ and Section B(1)(a-c) of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to follow the targeted monitoring procedures as outlined in this section of the CJ and on pages 2-4 of the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to review charter selection and verify LDOE calculations as required by this section of the
29

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 30 of 88

CJ.

b.

The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall

supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant

to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA

pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence

LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA

monitoring protocols (p. 9 of CJ).

Current Findings Pursuant to Section B(2)(a) on page 3 of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE was required to review files of students with disabilities with particular emphasis on students with low-incidence disabilities. For purposes of Related Services monitoring, a “student with a low-incidence disability” was defined as a student who is eligible for special education and related services under IDEA eligibility categories of deaf-blindness, deafness, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, traumatic brain injury, autism spectrum disorders, or visual impairment including blindness. Pursuant to Section B(2)(b) on page 3 of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE was required to request a list of students with low-incidence disabilities from each LEA targeted for monitoring and randomly select twenty (20) percent of the students on that list for a file review. Pursuant to Section B(2)(b)(1), the LDOE was required to review a minimum of ten (10) randomly selected files for student meeting the above criteria at each LEA in the event that an LEA identified less than fifty (50) students. Pursuant to Section B(2)(b)(2), the LDOE was required to review all files of
30

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 31 of 88
students with low incidence disabilities and supplement its review with additional randomly selected files of students with non-low-incidence disabilities in the event that an LEA identified less than ten (10) students with low incidence disabilities.
The LDOE provided the IMs with a list of identified students for each LEA during an onsite visit to the Department on March 22-24, 2016. Ten (10) students were selected by the LDOE for review from each LEA identified for targeted monitoring (e.g., Algiers Technology Academy, International High School of New Orleans, Landry-Walker High School). All 10 students from each LEA met the required criteria for selection. As such, all 30 students across the 3 charter schools targeted for monitoring met the required selection criteria outline in this section of the CJ.
Pursuant to Section B(3)(a) on page 3 of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE was required to review de-identified student record files for each of the students identified through the selection process described above. The LDOE was required to conduct the file review using the Related Services portion of the monitoring instrument and information sufficient to make all relevant determinations required by the monitoring tool.
Between March 22, 2016 and May 5, 2016 both LDOE monitoring personnel and the IMs completed desk file reviews of each of the ten (10) student files selected for each of the three (3) LEAs listed above using the Related Service protocol located on pages 10-11 of the Addendum of the CJ. In relation, the LDOE provided each charter with an additional
31

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 32 of 88
document entitled “Related Services and Enrollment Stability Monitoring Checklist” to assist them in the submission of required documents for the desk file review. This checklist was provided to the IMs for review on February 15, 2016 and included four items pertaining to related services documentation: 1) evidence of prior written notification, 2) IEP signature pages (first and last page), 3) documentation of related services including the method of measurement to achieve goal listed on the IEP (e.g., teacher logs, observational data, teacher checklists, student work samples, tally sheet, etc.) and 4) related services schedule for each student (include location of services, schedule of service delivery, student roster, and name and contact information of person responsible for providing services). At the request of the IMs, the LDOE provided each student’s 2014-2015 and/or 2015-2016 IEP and related documentation (e.g., SER related service reports, SER eligibility reports, Related Services and Enrollment Stability Monitoring Checklists complete by the charter school personnel, all information submitted from each LEA for each student to the LDOE, LDOE Related Services protocols completed from March, 2016 through May, 2016) to assist in the completion of protocol reviews for the identified students in the identified charters. As such, the IMs also reviewed all thirty (30) student files selected from the three (3) charters schools (e.g., Algiers Technology Academy, International High School of New Orleans, LandryWalker High School) for the spring 2016 school term.
Pursuant to Section 4(a) and 4(b) of Addendum A of the CJ, the LDOE was required to conduct interviews with at least one (1) general education teacher of students with disabilities, one (1) special education teacher, one (1) general education administrator,
32

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 33 of 88
and one (1) special education administrator or coordinator at each LEA selected for targeted monitoring. The LDOE was required to conduct staff interviews using the Related Services portion of the monitoring instrument.
The LDOE submitted the phone interview schedule for all charter schools across all four areas of targeting monitoring to the IMs on February 4, 2016. The staff interview for Algiers Technology Academy was conducted on February 25, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff (e.g., general education teacher, special education administrator/coordinator, special education teacher, ESS coordinator, exceptional support specialist, supervisor/speech therapist, speech pathologist assistant, social work supervisor, social worker, health services administrator, and APE teacher). The staff interview for International High School was conducted on February 25, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff (e.g., principal, general education teacher, special education administrator/coordinator, special education teacher/coordinator, and director of curriculum and instruction). The staff interview for Landry-Walker High School was conducted on February 16, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff (e.g., general education teacher, special education administrator/coordinator, special education teacher, ESS coordinator, exceptional support specialist, speech therapist, speech pathologist coordinator, social work supervisor, social worker, and health services administrator). The results of the phone interviews were submitted by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification on February 19, 2016 and March 4, 2016. In relation, the list of participants for each charter
33

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 34 of 88
school was sent by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification on March 4, 2016 and May 10, 2016.
Pursuant to Section B(5) of the Addendum to the CJ on page 4, the LDOE shall conduct on-site compliance monitoring at the LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the event that LDOE’s review of information gathered through the student file review and staff interview processes: (1) is insufficient to make determinations of legal compliance, or (2) indicates that on-site observations or visual inspection of school facilities is necessary to make determinations of legal compliance.
LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs determined in an onsite meeting at the Department on April 28, 2016 that school visits would not be necessary for the identified charter schools to make determinations of legal compliance in the area of Related Services.
As agreed upon in the meeting with all parties in Judge Jay Zainey’s chambers on January 6, 2016, aggregated data from the protocol reviews will be presented in the biannual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. However, a general overview of protocol findings will be presented here. Based on a review of student file reviews using the Related Services protocol, both the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs observed concerns with the development of measurable, standards-based annual goals, including academic and functional goals (Item #5 on the protocol) on IEPs for students attending all three LEAs selected for targeted monitoring. The LDOE and IMs also observed concerns with the attendance of related service personnel at IEP meetings (Item #3) for some
34

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 35 of 88
students at International High School based on a review of signatures on the IEP and/or other documentation (e.g., written prior notice, excusal forms). The IMs observed concerns with the provision of related services in the type and frequency specified on the IEP (Item #9) for three (3) students at Algiers Technology Academy receiving counseling and/or social work services and three (3) students at International High School receiving adaptive PE and/or occupational therapy as a related service and one (1) student receiving social work services as a related service.
Status of Compliance – Targeted Monitoring A review of the documents submitted by each identified charter school and the LDOE and completion of the student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Related Services protocol revealed that the LDOE completed the staff interviews and student file reviews during the spring 2016 term as designated in Section IV(B)(2)(b) of the CJ and Sections B(3)(a), B(4)(a), B(4)(b), B(5)(a) on pages 3-4 of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with these sections of the CJ and Addendum of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on the activities performed to date.
Status of Compliance – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Action The LDOE informed the IMs during a phone conference held on June 2, 2016 that monitoring reports for the charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 school term have been completed. The LDOE also reported that cover letters, complete monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of
35

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 36 of 88
noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, and corrective action plan templates will be provided to each LEA and IMs on June 8, 2016 which is consistent with LDOE timelines for issuing this information to the LEAs. The LDOE confirmed during the phone conference that areas of noncompliance identified by both LDOE personnel and the IMs during the protocol reviews and phone interviews were used in completing the monitoring reports, making determinations regarding noncompliance, and making recommendations for corrective action. LDOE personnel will be providing technical assistance directly to each LEA in developing the corrective action plans during the first two weeks of June 2016. In relation, the IMs shall receive each LEAs recommended corrective action plan by June 30, 2016 for review and comment. The IMs will provide an update regarding the monitoring reports and corrective action plans for each LEA in the report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. Specifically, the IMs will review if the LDOE required each LEA to “undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 9 of CJ). As such, the IMs will evaluate the status of compliance for LEA noncompliance determinations and corrective actions identified by the LDOE after reviewing the monitoring reports and corrective action plans.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to perform student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Related Services protocol as outlined this section of the CJ and on pages 2-4 of the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in
36

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 37 of 88
the CJ. The IMs will review monitoring reports and corrective action plans to ensure that the concerns identified during protocol reviews by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs were addressed in forthcoming monitoring reports for the three (3) identified LEAs targeted for monitoring in the area of Related Services during the spring 2016 term. In addition, the IMs recommend for consideration by all parties that staff interviews and student file reviews for LEAs identified for future reviews be conducted on site. This recommendation is being made to assist the IMs and LDOE personnel in completing the student file reviews in a timely and cost effective manner as the desk review process required approximately 6 weeks during the spring 2016 term. On-site visits will also allow the IMs and/or LDOE to have quick access to school personnel to assist in obtaining any additional information that may be needed to make determinations regarding compliance with this section of the CJ. The IMs also recommend for consideration by all parties that the staff interview process and student file reviews be completed onsite during the fall 2016 term by both LDOE personnel and IMs for LEAs identified for targeted reviews based on an analysis of 2015-2016 related services provision data.
37

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 38 of 88

SECTION IV(C) DISCIPLINE (pp. 9-11 of the CJ) 1. The State Defendants shall, within 60 days of the implementation of this
Agreement, review the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans for compliance with the IDEA. The State Defendants shall require that the codes of conduct and/or discipline policies for each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans contain, at a minimum: (a) a written description of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, which should be written in plain language that parents/guardians, students, and the general public can understand; and (b) a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252 (p. 9 of CJ).

a.

For the duration of this Agreement, the State Defendants shall, on the

anniversary of the initial reviews described above:

i. require each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to submit a written

assurance that the code of conduct and/or discipline policy for the school has not

changed since the State Defendants last reviewed the code or policy; or,

ii. review, for compliance with the IDEA, the code of conduct and/or discipline

policy of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans that is unable to provide

such an assurance (p. 9 of CJ).

Current Findings A document entitled the “Procedural Safeguards Checklist - Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities” was developed by LDOE to assist in the compliance review
38

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 39 of 88
of the code of conduct and/or discipline policies of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans. The 19-item document covers the following discipline policies; 1) Overview of Procedural Safeguards & Change in Placement, 2) Determining Manifestation Determination & Services, 3) Weapons, Drugs or Serious Bodily Injury: Emergency Procedures. 4) Appeals, 5) Placement during Appeal of Discipline Decision, 6) Students Without IEPs or Section 504 Plans “Deemed to Have a Disability,” and 7) La. R.S. 17:251-252 (Discipline Master Plan). The former IM, Mark Mlawer, reviewed the document on October 29, 2015 and made comments or recommended edits for five (5) items (i.e., 6, 7, 8, 16, and 19), however, he also indicated his review and/or revision of the items were not required according to CJ. The LDOE utilized the approved rubric to review the Codes of Conduct for each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans. After examining these results, the LDOE developed the model policy “Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities,” disseminated the policy to all charters, and recommended that each LEA include all components of the required policy in their school’s Code of Conduct. However, the charter schools were not required to place the specific language from the model policy in their Codes of Conduct. Each LEA was only instructed to ensure that the language in their Codes of Conduct were consistent with all components addressed in the model policy document. The LDOE noted in a phone conference with the IMs held on May 25, 2016 that they made this decision in order to afford the individual charter schools the flexibility to present the required information using language that their consumers would understand.
The LDOE provided the individual scores for each protocol to the “Procedural Safeguards Checklist - Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities” to the IMs
39

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 40 of 88
on April 28, 2016. An appraisal by the IMs noted that one Code of Conduct was reviewed for the following charter groups; ReNEW, KIPP, Friends of King, and Algiers. Of the 43 total reviews, 23% (10 of 43 LEAs) of the charter LEAs obtained an affirmative score on all 19-items. These low scores supported the LDOEs development of model policy entitled “Discipline Policy & Procedures for Students with Disabilities” to assist the charter schools in addressing all required components in their respective Codes of Conduct. The IMs conducted a review of the Codes of Conduct submitted by 59 charter schools. This review revealed that 38 charter schools adopted the specific language from the LDOE model policy document and included it in their Code of Conduct for the 2015-2016 school year. The IMs initial evaluation of the remaining 21 charter school’s documents (6 schools from the Algiers Charter School Association, 3 schools from Crescent City Schools, 9 schools from KIPP: New Orleans, and 3 NonNetwork Charters including Mary Coghill Accelerated, The NET Charter, and Sophie B. Wright) indicated the LEAs potentially had all or part of the required LDOE discipline polices in their respective Codes of Conduct. A more thorough review of the Codes of Conduct from the remaining charter schools not using the specific language from the LDOE model policy document will be conducted by the IMs during the summer 2016 term and an update will be provided in the IM bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
The IMs also reviewed the model policy template to determine if all the elements of the CJ for discipline were included. The policy contained all the components of Section IV (C) (1a) addressing IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections. However, in relation to
40

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 41 of 88
the requirements in Section IV (C) (1b), the IMs did not observe clear evidence of each LEAs plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252.” The LDOE stated during a phone conference held with the IMs on May 25, 2016 that they would have each charter submit language regarding their PBIS policies and procedures and/or a signed attestation that they will follow the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252 for the coming school year. The IMs will review these documents during the summer 2016 term and an update will be provided in the IM bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
A copy of the “Procedural Safeguards Checklist Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities” and the “Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities” can be found in Appendix A.
Status of Compliance The IMs examination of the “Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities” revealed the policy did not include language to address the LEAs plan for supporting behavior and discipline pursuant to Section IV (C) (1b). Therefore, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance at this time. The IMs will review the remaining 21 charter school’s code of conduct for discussed above and provide an update IMs in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
Recommendations The IMs recommend all LEAs thoroughly review the LDOE model policy “Discipline
41

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 42 of 88
Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities” to ensure that all required components are included in their respective Codes of Conduct. In addition, all LEAs should submit written evidence to the LDOE that they have a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251252 by June 30, 2016. The IMs will review these policies and procedures once received from the LDOE. The IMs will also continue review each charter school’s Code of Conduct policies and provide updated in future bi-annual reports.
2. The Defendant-Intervenor shall, within 60 days of the implementation of this Agreement, review the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each school under its jurisdiction for compliance with the IDEA. The Defendant-Intervenor shall require that the codes of conduct and/or discipline policies for each school under its jurisdiction contain, at a minimum: (a) a written description of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, which should be written in plain language that parents/guardians, students, and the general public can understand; and (b) a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252 (p. 10 of CJ).
a. For the duration of this Agreement, the Defendant-Intervenor shall, on the anniversary of the initial reviews described above: i. require each school under its jurisdiction to submit a written assurance that the code of conduct and/or discipline policy for the school has not changed since the Defendant-Intervenor last reviewed the code or policy; or,
42

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 43 of 88

ii.

review, for compliance with the IDEA, the code of conduct and/or discipline

policy of each school under its jurisdiction that is unable to provide such an assurance

(p. 10 of CJ).

Current Findings In a letter dated February 1, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated they were not in receipt of the code of conduct reviews from OPSB schools. During a meeting of all parties on February 28, 2016, Wayne Stewart, counsel for OPSB, noted all schools in the district will adopt the “Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities” for the 2016-17 school year.
Status of Compliance Compliance for Section IV (C) of the CJ cannot be evaluated until each charter LEA provides written descriptions of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, and their plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251252 (p. 10 of CJ). Therefore, OPSB is judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV (C) (2) at this time.

Recommendations The IMs recommend that OPSB place the LDOE model policy entitled “Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities” in the 2016-2017 Code of Conduct using the precise format and language provided by the LDOE. This will allow for easy verification
43

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 44 of 88

by the IMs for Section IV (C) (1b) of the CJ. In addition, OPSB should submit written evidence that the district has a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252. OPSB shall submit this information to the IMs by June 30, 2016 for review and comment. The IMs will continue to review OPSB’s Code of Conduct policies and provide updates in future bi-annual reports.

3. The State Defendants shall provide annual technical assistance to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions and shall develop and broadly disseminate information to parents of students at each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans about the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions. Additionally, the State Defendants shall provide annual professional development to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans on disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities and on best practices to reduce suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities (p. 10 of CJ).

a.

The State Defendants shall provide the required technical assistance and

professional development to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans

annually by October 31 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 10 of CJ).

b.

The State Defendants shall provide information detailing the methods and

materials to be used to provide the required technical assistance and professional

development to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by June 1 for

the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the

44

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 45 of 88
materials to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 10 of CJ).
Current Findings Technical Assistance The LDOE developed the document “PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance” to address the practice of undocumented suspensions. The LDOE presented the guidance document in workshop on December 10-11, 2015. The Department requested all LEAs provide assurance of receipt of technical assistance regarding undocumented suspension and development of a plan for distributing the Department’s guidance to the parents of all students with disabilities by January 29, 2016. In a letter dated February 1, 2016, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated the received the document “PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance” and reported that they had “no … concerns with the guidance document.” In the same correspondence, the Plaintiff’s counsel also requested the IMs verify that guidance assistance was disseminated to every LEA.
The LDOE also developed a document for parents to address undocumented suspensions entitled “Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools.” The document was reviewed and accepted by the Plaintiff’s counsel and IMs on February 28, 2016 during an on-site meeting at the LDOE. Plaintiff’s counsel also requested the IMs review and verify
45

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 46 of 88
the plans of each LEA to determine if the document was disseminated to all parents of student with disabilities. The IMs conducted a review of all fifty-nine (59) charter schools’ statements of how they disseminated information to parents concerning undocumented suspensions. The assessment revealed all LEAs provided an example of at least one method of dissemination to consumers (e.g., scheduled parent conferences for progress reports, letter sent home to parents of students with disabilities, IEP or IAP meetings, parent newsletters, inclusion with registration documents).
The LDOE submitted verification of attendance documents from the December 10-11, 2015 workshop which included the “Undocumented Suspension Guidance,” “Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools” document, PowerPoint, and sign-in sheets to the IMs on April 22, 2016. In addition, certification statements were obtained from five (5) LEAs who did not attend the workshop, but signed attestation statements that they reviewed and understood the PowerPoint and documents. This information was also provided to the IMs on April 22, 2016.
Annual professional development A PowerPoint presentation entitled “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” was presented by Civil Rights Solutions during the summer 2015 term. The workshop was conducted without a review by Plaintiff’s counsel or the IMs. In relation, the Plaintiff’s counsel expressed several concerns with the professional development in a letter dated February 1, 2016 (e.g., restatements of federal law with minimal practice guidelines for implementation, failure to address development of FBAs and BIPs, failure to address
46

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 47 of 88
multi-tiered use of PBIS strategies and interventions, failure to address support strategies for students with disabilities, failure to address procedural safeguards such as a prior written notice before a disciplinary change of placement, and failure to meaningfully address “best practices” to reduce suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities).
During a meeting held on February 28, 2016 at the LDOE, the decision was made that additional professional development training will be developed by the IMs in coordination with all parties to address the aforementioned limitations of the previous professional development held during the summer 2015 term. In relation, the Parties and IMs will work collaboratively to establish a presentation schedule for professional development during the late summer or early fall 2016 term as LEA schedules for the 2016-2017 school year become available.
Status of Compliance - Technical Assistance Based on a review of related technical assistance material including the “PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance” template, the “Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools” template, and verification documents provided by each LEA, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Technical Assistance provisions of Section IV (C) (3) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year.
Status of Compliance - Annual Professional Development Given a number of concerns in relation to the presentation “Discipline of Students with Disabilities,” and February 28, 2016 agreement for additional professional development
47

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 48 of 88
training to be developed by the IMs in coordination with all parties, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance with regard to the annual professional development provisions of Section IV (C) (3) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year.
Recommendations In terms of the Technical Assistance Findings, the IMs recommend that all charter schools use a variety methods (e.g., mail parents and/or legal guardians of students with disabilities a copy of the document via U.S. postal services; send a copy of the document to the residence in an envelope with the student; email a copy of the document to the parents of students with disabilities; include a copy of the document in the new school year packet of information or registration packets; provide a copy of the document to parents and/or legal guardians at annual IEP or IAP review meetings; include a copy of the document in the Parent Newsletter; have a copy of the document available across several school settings including, but not limited to, the front office, Principal’s or Dean of Student’s Office, Family Resource Center) in an effort to the “broadly” disseminate information to parents of students with disabilities regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions as required in Section IV (C) (3) of the CJ.
In relation to annual professional development, the IMs will collaborate with the Plaintiff’s counsel, LDOE, and OPSB to develop and conduct the professional development for the LEAs as agreed upon by all parties during the meeting on February 28, 2016. The parties shall establish a presentation schedule as LEA schedules for the 2016-2017 school year are developed and made available to the parties.
48

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 49 of 88

4. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide annual technical assistance to each school under its jurisdiction regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions and shall develop and broadly disseminate information to parents of students at each school under its jurisdiction about the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions. Additionally, the Defendant-Intervenor shall provide annual professional development to each school under its jurisdiction on disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities and on best practices to reduce suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities (pp. 10-11 of CJ).

a.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide the required technical assistance

and professional development to each school under its jurisdiction annually by October

31 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 11 of CJ).

b.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide information detailing the methods

and materials to be used to provide the required technical assistance and professional

development to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by June 1 for

the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the

materials to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments

on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent

Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve

documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 11 of CJ).

Current Findings Technical Assistance Findings Wayne Stewart indicated that OPSB will adopt the approved LDOE “Undocumented
49

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 50 of 88
Suspension Guidance,” and “Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools” model templates for the 2016-2017 school year. The documents have been approved by the Plaintiff’s counsel and IMs. A communication from Wayne Stewart on June 1, 2016, indicated OPSB will provide confirmation of any technical assistance activities performed in May and June 2016.
Annual professional development On September 24, 2016 Wayne Stewart, counsel for OPSB, conducted a workshop entitled “Discipline of Students with Disabilities.” The PowerPoint was approved by Plaintiff’s counsel and IMs. IMs verified all 20 of OPSBs charter schools sent various school personnel to the discipline workshop. A communication from Wayne Stewart on June 1, 2016, indicated OPSB will provide confirmation of any additional professional development activities performed in May and June 2016.
During a meeting held on February 28, 2016 at the LDOE, the decision was made that additional professional development training will be developed by the IMs in coordination with all parties to address the aforementioned limitations of the previous training held during the summer 2015 term. The parties will then work to establish a presentation schedule as LEA schedules for the 2016-2017 school year.
Status of Compliance – Technical Assistance Based on a review of current documentation, OPSB is judged to be in Noncompliance with the Technical Assistance provisions of Section IV (C) (4) for the CJ for the 2015-16
50

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 51 of 88
year.
Status of Compliance – Annual Professional Development Based on a review of the workshop conducted on “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” and verification all 20 LEAs attended the workshop, OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the professional development provisions of Section IV (C) (4) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year.
Recommendations To address Section IV (C) (4) regarding undocumented suspensions and parent information the OPSD should submit to the IMs verification their charters disseminated to parents the LDOE the document “Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools.” In addition, the IMs recommend that all OPSB charter schools use a variety methods (e.g., mail parents and/or legal guardians of students with disabilities a copy of the document via U.S. postal services; send a copy of the document to the residence in an envelope with the student; email a copy of the document to the parents of students with disabilities; include a copy of the document in the new school year packet of information or registration packets; provide a copy of the document to parents and/or legal guardians at annual IEP or IAP review meetings; include a copy of the document in the Parent Newsletter; have a copy of the document available across several school settings including, but not limited to, the front office, Principal’s or Dean of Student’s Office, Family Resource Center) in an effort to the “broadly” disseminate the information to parents of students with disabilities regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented
51

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 52 of 88
suspensions as required in this section of the CJ. As mentioned previously, the IMs will collaborate with the Plaintiff’s counsel, LDOE, and OPSB to develop and conduct the professional development for the LEAs as agreed upon by all parties during the meeting on February 28, 2016. The parties shall establish a presentation schedule as LEA schedules for the 2016-2017 school year are developed and made available to the parties.
5. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans removes students with disabilities for disciplinary purposes for more than ten (10) cumulative days in an academic year (“extended disciplinary removal rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities who received six (6) or more Office Discipline Referrals or three (3) or more suspensions (in- or out-of-school) in a school year. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 11 of CJ).
a. The extended disciplinary removal rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of students with disabilities who experienced disciplinary removals for more than ten (10) cumulative days between July 1 and June 30 by the total number of
52

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 53 of 88
students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1 (p. 11 of CJ).
Current Findings The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements of the discipline requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The IMs were provided a sample notification email for review. The LDOE also conducted planning calls with each identified charter during January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format, and desk file review process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on April 4, 2016 that included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools along with three additional columns populating SWD Suspended/Expelled >10 Days, School IDEA Count, and % SWD Suspended/ Expelled >10 Days using the formula specified in Addendum A of the CJ. A review of the spreadsheet and related materials from the LDOE by the IMs revealed that the following three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring as required in Section (C) (1) of the CJ:
53

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 54 of 88
1. Cohen College Prep 2. Crescent Leadership Academy 3. International High School of New Orleans Although Crescent Leadership Academy (CLA) was selected for monitoring during the spring 2016 school term, the LDOE elected not to complete desk file reviews for CLA based on a recent monitoring visit conducted the previous school year on March 3, 2015. A letter from LDOE to CLA dated April 4, 2015, indicated there were no findings which required resolution. Staff interviews were completed with CLA personnel on the discipline protocol as part of the spring 2016 phone interview process on February 17, 2016, and staff were able to provide appropriate answers to all questions on the monitoring protocol.
Status of Compliance The LDOE followed the selection criteria as outlined in Section IV (C) (5) and identified three (3) schools for targeted monitoring, and completed phone interviews for all three schools. However, the LDOE excluded Crescent Leadership Academy (CLA) from the desk reviews, which reduced to the number of LEAs monitored during the spring 2016 term to two (2) schools instead of the required three (3) schools as outlined in this section of the CJ. Therefore, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance for the 2015-2016 school year as a result of not completing the targeted monitoring for three (3) LEAs as required in Section C (1a) of the CJ Addendum.
54

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 55 of 88
Recommendations In the future, the LDOE shall complete the targeted monitoring process (i.e., student file reviews, phone interviews with designated staff members) for all selected charter schools for discipline monitoring. Selection of three (3) LEAs and review of all required materials during student file reviews and completion of required staff interviews will provide the opportunity for the LDOE to achieve compliance for this section of the CJ in future school years.
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 11 of CJ).
Current Findings Pursuant to Section C(2)(a) of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE was required to review files of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities who received six (6) or more Office Discipline Referrals or three (3) or more suspensions (in- or outof-school) in a school year. Pursuant to Section C(2)(b) of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE was required to request a list of de-identified students meeting the criteria for C (2) from each LEA targeted for monitoring and randomly select twenty (20) percent of the students on that list for a file review. Pursuant to Section C(2)(b)(1), the LDOE was
55

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 56 of 88
required to review a minimum of ten (10) randomly selected files for student meeting the above criteria at each LEA in the event that an LEA identified less than fifty (50) students. Pursuant to Section C(2)(b)(2), the LDOE was required to review all files of students meeting the above criteria and supplement its review with additional randomly selected files of students identified under the disability categories of Emotional Disturbance or Other Health Impairment in the event that an LEA identified less than ten (10) students meeting the above criteria.
The LDOE provided the IMs with a list of identified students for each LEA during an onsite visit to the Department on March 22-24, 2016. A total of ten (10) students were selected by the LDOE for review from two (2) of the schools selected for monitoring (e.g., Cohen College Prep and International High School of New Orleans).
Pursuant to Section C(3)(a) of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE was required to review de-identified student record files for each of the students identified through the selection process described above. The LDOE was required to conduct the file review using the discipline portion of the monitoring instrument and information sufficient to make all relevant determinations required by the monitoring tool.
Between March 22, 2016 and May 5, 2016 both LDOE monitoring personnel and the IMs completed desk file reviews of each of the ten (10) student files selected for two (2) of the three (3) LEAs listed above using the discipline protocol located in the Addendum of the CJ. In relation, the LDOE provided each charter with an additional document entitled
56

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 57 of 88
“Discipline Monitoring Checklist” to assist them in the submission of required documents for the desk file review.
Pursuant to Section C(4)(a) and C(4)(b) of Addendum A of the CJ, the LDOE was required to conduct interviews with at least one (1) general education teacher of students with disabilities, one (1) special education teacher, one (1) general education administrator, and one (1) special education administrator or coordinator at each LEA selected for targeted monitoring. The LDOE was required to conduct staff interviews using the discipline portion of the monitoring instrument.
The LDOE submitted the phone interview schedule for all charter schools across all four areas of targeting monitoring to the IMs on February 4, 2016. The staff interview for International High School was conducted on February 25, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff. The staff interview for Cohen College Prep was conducted on February 16, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff. The staff interview for Crescent Leadership Academy was conducted on February 17, 2016 via phone with LDOE monitoring personnel, IMs, and charter school staff. The results of the phone interviews were submitted by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification on by March 4, 2016. In relation, the list of participants for each charter school was sent by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification by May 10, 2016.
Pursuant to Section C(5)(a) of the Addendum to the CJ, the LDOE shall conduct on-site
57

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 58 of 88
compliance monitoring at the LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the event that LDOE’s review of information gathered through the student file review and staff interview processes: (1) is insufficient to make determinations of legal compliance, or (2) indicates that on-site observations or visual inspection of school facilities is necessary to make determinations of legal compliance. LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs determined in an onsite meeting at the Department on April 28, 2016 that school visits would not be necessary for the identified charter schools to make determinations of legal compliance in the area of Discipline.
As agreed upon in the meeting with all parties in Judge Jay Zainey’s chambers on January 6, 2016, aggregated data from the protocol reviews will be presented in the biannual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. However, a general overview of protocol findings will be presented here. The discipline data in 11 of the 20 student’s files were collected from the 2015-16 school year. Therefore, discipline data were not collected for an entire school year for more than half of the student cases reviewed as required in Addendum A (C) (1b) of the CJ. In addition, only four (4) of the 20 students selected for the review met the criteria for experiencing greater than 10 days of removal. Despite the small sample size of four students, file reviews using the Discipline protocol revealed the following concerns: failure to conduct required MDRs as required by federal and state law, failure to provide timely parent notification for removals which constituted a change in placement, and failure to use relevant information to determine if behavior was a manifestation of the student’s disability.
58

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 59 of 88
Status of Compliance - Targeted Monitoring Based on a review of targeted monitoring documents submitted by each identified charter school and the LDOE, and completion of the student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Child Find protocol, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV(C)(5)(b) of the CJ and Section C (2) (a) of the CJ Addendum for the 2015-2016 school year because the student files selected for review during the spring 2016 term did not include a full year of discipline data as required as outlined in Section C(2)(a) of Addendum A of the CJ.
Status of Compliance – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Action The LDOE informed the IMs during a phone conference held on June 2, 2016 that monitoring reports for the charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 school term have been completed. The LDOE also reported that cover letters, complete monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, and corrective action plan templates will be provided to each LEA and IMs on June 8, 2016 which is consistent with LDOE timelines for issuing this information to the LEAs. The LDOE stated that areas of noncompliance identified by both LDOE personnel and the IMs during the protocol reviews and phone interviews were used in completing the monitoring reports, making determinations regarding noncompliance, and making recommendations for corrective action. LDOE personnel will be providing technical assistance directly to each LEA in developing the corrective action plans during the first two weeks of June 2016. In relation, the IMs shall receive each LEAs recommended corrective action plan by June
59

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 60 of 88
30, 2016 for review and comment. The IMs will provide an update regarding the monitoring reports and corrective action plans for each LEA in the report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. Specifically, the IMs will review if the LDOE required each LEA to “undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 11 of CJ). As such, the IMs will evaluate the status of compliance for noncompliance determinations and corrective actions for each LEA identified by the LDOE after reviewing the monitoring reports and corrective action plans.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to perform student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Discipline protocol as outlined this section of the CJ and in the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ. The LDOE is strongly encouraged to address the concerns identified during the student selection process in the area of Discipline. In addition, appropriate corrective actions should be recommended by the LDOE to address identified areas of noncompliance for the targeted LEAs. The IMs will review the monitoring reports submitted by the LDOE and shall collaboratively participate with the LDOE in the development of corrective action plans to address identified areas of noncompliance. In addition, the IMs recommend for consideration by all parties that staff interviews and student file reviews for identified LEAs identified be conducted onsite to assist in the acquisition of materials required to complete the reviews and to have access to school personnel during the file review process. This recommendation is being made to assist the IMs and LDOE personnel in
60

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 61 of 88 completing the student file reviews in a timely and cost effective manner as the desk review process required approximately 6 weeks during the spring 2016 term. On-site visits will also allow the IMs and/or LDOE to have quick access to school personnel to assist in obtaining any additional information that may be needed to make determinations regarding compliance with this section of the CJ. The IMs also recommend for consideration by all parties that the staff interview process and student file reviews be completed onsite during the fall 2016 term by both LDOE personnel and IMs for LEAs identified for targeted reviews based on an analysis of 2015-2016 discipline data. Finally, based on the small number of reviewable records, the IMs recommend all parties consider modifications to the student selection criteria outlined in this section and in Section C (1a) (page 2) and Section C (2a) (page 3) of the CJ Addendum A to in order to obtain a more representative sample of students for future targeted monitoring reviews.
61

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 62 of 88

SECTION IV(D) ENROLLMENT (pp. 11-15 of the CJ)

1.

The State Defendants shall annually disseminate to each Type 2 and Type 5

charter school in New Orleans policy guidance describing the legal obligations of each

Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to enroll and serve students with

disabilities pursuant to federal law. The State Defendants will request that the principal

of each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school acknowledge receipt of this guidance. The

guidance will, at a minimum, contain: (a) a summary of the legal obligations of the school

to provide necessary services and accommodations to students with disabilities; (b) a

statement describing the obligations of the school to enroll students with disabilities

without regard to their disabilities; (c) a statement advising the school that its staff is

prohibited from informing or suggesting to parents of students with disabilities that the

parents should not enroll their child in the school because the school does not provide the

services or placement necessary for the child or because the child’s disability would be

better served at another school; and (d) a statement notifying the principal that he or she

can incur personal monetary damages for intentional discrimination and operating in

bad faith due to noncompliance with Section 504 (pp. 11-12 of CJ).

a.

The State Defendants shall disseminate the required policy guidance to each

Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans annually by March 1 for the duration of

this Agreement (p. 12 of CJ).

b. The State Defendants shall provide the policy guidance to the Independent

Monitor for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration of this

Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the

Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the

62

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 63 of 88
Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 12 of CJ).
Current Findings Ty Manieri, LDOE counsel, submitted the LDOE document entitled “PB v White – Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” (see Appendix A for the model template) to Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco, and the IMs on January 15, 2016 for review. Plaintiff’s counsel reviewed the proposed LDOE “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” document and indicated approval of this policy document in a written correspondence dated February 1, 2016. Additionally, the LDOE Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” document was discussed and approved by all parties on February 18, 2016 during a meeting with Ty Manieri, LDOE counsel, Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco, and the IMs.
Ty Manieri, LDOE counsel, provided professional development for NOLA Charter School Organizations on December 10-11, 2015 to review the P.B. v White CJ. All NOLA Charter Organizations not attending the December 10-11, 2015 professional development training were directed by the LDOE to submit an “Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Guidance” document to the LDOE by January 29, 2016.
Sign-in sheets completed by NOLA Charter representatives attending the December 10-
63

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 64 of 88
11, 2015 professional development training to address the CJ and all completed “Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” documents were submitted to the IMs by RSD personnel on April 22, 2016 and LDOE counsel, Kathe Zolman, on May 10, 2016.
NOLA Charter Organizations and/or individual LEAs participating in this professional development included BESE Charters (International School of Louisiana (K-8) and Lycee’ Francais (PK-8), Algiers, ARISE, Collegiate Academies (Sci Academy), Crescent City Schools, First Line Schools, Friends of Kings, KIPP-New Orleans (KIPP NOLA Leadership Academy (K-8), New Beginnings, NOLA College Prep, ReNew and Non-Network Charters (Edgar P. Harny (K-8), Morris Jeff (PK-7), Success Prep Academy (K-8), Fannie C. Williams (PK-8), Crescent Leadership (7-12) and Sophia B. Wright (7-12).
Collectively, 100% of NOLA Charter School organizations were represented at the December 10-11, 2015 professional development training to review the PB v White CJ. However, only thirty-nine (39) representatives from individual charter LEAs attended this professional development training and a total of only three “Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Guidance” documents were provided by principals of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs.
Status of Compliance Based on the agreement between all parties, including both Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s
64

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 65 of 88
counsel, the IMs agree the LDOE “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” document is consistent with the required guidelines outlined in Section IV.D.1 of the PB v White CJ.
However, Section IV.D.1 of the CJ also specifically requires the State Defendants to disseminate “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” to each principal of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools by March 1 annually and request written receipt (i.e. Attestations) of this guidance. This dissemination of the “Enrollment Discrimination Guidance” and receipt of attestation documents from school principals is required annually for the duration of the CJ. As mentioned previously, although there is evidence that representatives from each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter Organization received professional development reviewing enrollment discrimination guidance, there is, however, limited evidence that each principal of Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs received training and/or completed an “Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Guidance” document. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance with the completion of this implementation activity as required under Section IV.D.1 of the CJ. The IMs will review evidence of compliance once submitted by the LDOE and make determinations regarding Substantial Compliance or Noncompliance. An update regarding this section of the CJ will be provided by the IMs in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
Recommendations It is recommended that the LDOE disseminate the approved “LDOE Enrollment
65

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 66 of 88
Discrimination Policy Guidance” document to all principals in NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs and document receipt through signed attestations prior to the beginning of the 2016-2017 school year and by March 1, and annually, thereafter. Additionally, it is recommended the “LDOE Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” be specifically incorporated into all required annual trainings to address the CJ.

2.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall annually disseminate to each school under its

jurisdiction policy guidance describing the legal obligations of each school under its

jurisdiction to enroll and serve students with disabilities pursuant to federal law. The

Defendant- Intervenor will require the principal of each school under its jurisdiction to

acknowledge receipt of this guidance. The guidance will, at a minimum, contain: (a) a

summary of the legal obligations of the school to provide all necessary services and

accommodations to students with disabilities; (b) a statement describing the obligations

of the school to enroll students with disabilities without regard to their disabilities; (c) a

statement advising the school that its staff is prohibited from informing or suggesting to

parents of students with disabilities that the parents should not enroll their child in the

school because the school does not provide the services or placement necessary for the

child or because the child’s disability would be better served at another school; and (d)

a statement notifying the principal that he or she can incur personal monetary damages

for intentional discrimination and operating in bad faith due to noncompliance with

Section 504 (p. 12 of CJ).

a. The Defendant-Intervenor shall disseminate the required policy guidance to each school 66

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 67 of 88
under its jurisdiction annually by March 1 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 12 of CJ).
b. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide the policy guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twentyone (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (pp. 12-13 of CJ).
Current Findings Wayne Stewart, Legal Counsel for the Defendant-Intervenor (OPSB), provided the IMs with the OPSB’s policy entitled “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” (See Appendix A for the model template document) for review on February 28, 2016. It is important to note that the Defendant-Intervenor (OPSB) adopted the agreed upon LDOE “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs reviewed and provided him with feedback regarding this document on April 4, 2016.
Status of Compliance Based on the agreement between all parties, including both Defendant-Intervenor (OSPB counsel) and Plaintiff’s counsel, the IMs agree the OPSB “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” document is consistent with the required guidelines
67

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 68 of 88
outlined in Section IV.D. 2 of the PB v White CJ.
As noted previously, Section IV.D.2 of the CJ also requires the Defendant-Intervenor to disseminate policy guidance related to enrollment discrimination policies to each school under its jurisdiction and require the principal of each school under its jurisdiction to acknowledge receipt of this guidance. Currently, no evidence has been submitted by the OPSB to indicate this implementation activity was completed during the 2015-2016 school term. As such, the OPSB is judged to be in Noncompliance with this required IA under Section IV.D.2 of the CJ. It should be reported that in a June 1, 2016 correspondence from Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, indicated that evidence of OPSB’s implementation activities required under Section IV.D.2 of the CJ is forthcoming. Once received, the IMs will evaluate the status of compliance for this requirement of the CJ and these findings will be reported in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 0216.
Recommendations It is recommended the Defendant-Intervenor (OPSB) disseminate the approved “Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance” document to all principals under OPSB jurisdiction and document receipt (e.g., completed attestations) by June 30, 2016 for the 2016-2017 school year and by March 1, annually, thereafter. Additionally, it is recommended the OSPD Enrollment Discrimination Policy be specifically incorporated into all required annual trainings to address the PB v White CJ.
68

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 69 of 88

3.

The State Defendants shall require that each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school

in New Orleans annually develops a written description of its special education program,

including, at a minimum: (a) the name and contact information of the special education

coordinator for the school; (b) a description of how pupil appraisal, special education,

and related services are provided by the school; (c) a description of how the school plans

to provide the continuum of special education placements for students whose IEP

placement is outside of the regular education setting; (d) the current enrollment rate of

students with disabilities served by the school; (e) the current suspension rate of students

with disabilities served by the school; (f) the number of students with disabilities who are

removed for disciplinary reasons for more than 10 school days in one academic year; and

(g) an indication of the school’s accessibility to individuals with mobility impairments.

The State Defendants shall require that the program descriptions for all Type 2 and Type

5 charter schools in New Orleans are made available to parents of students with

disabilities at each school site and on each school’s website. RSD’s website will provide

a link to the descriptions available on each school website, and parents who express an

interest will be guided to this portion of RSD’s website when completing enrollment at an

RSD Family Resource Center (p. 13 of CJ).

Current Findings Ty Manieri, LDOE counsel, submitted the LDOE document entitled “PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template” (See Appendix A for model template) to Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco, and the IMs on 1/15/2016 for review. Plaintiff’s counsel reviewed the proposed LDOE “Special Education Program
69

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 70 of 88
Description” document and on February 1, 2016 and recommended two additions to the draft “Program Description” document submitted by the LDOE. Specifically, as required under Section IV.D.3.c. of the CJ, Plaintiff’s counsel recommended revising the draft “Special Education Program Description Template” document to provide an opportunity for LEAs to specifically describe how the school will provide a continuum of special education supports for students whose placement requires a special school, detention center, therapeutic placement, hospital or homebound setting. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s counsel recommended revising the draft “Special Education Program Description Template” document to provide an opportunity for LEAs to describe accessibility to individuals with mobility impairments and/or accommodations for individuals with mobility impairments as required by Section IV.D.3.g. of the CJ. The concerns expressed by Plaintiff’s counsel regarding the “PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template” document were discussed and recommended edits were approved by all parties on 2/18/2016 during a meeting with LDOE counsel, Ty Manieri, OPSD counsel, Wayne Stewart, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco, and the IMs.
Kathe Zolman, counsel for the LDOE, submitted the revised “PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template” to the IMs on May 11, 2016 for review. The IMs collaborated with LDOE to make one additional revision to the draft “Program Description Template” and Kathe Zolman, LDOE counsel, forwarded the final revised draft “Program Description” template document to Eden Heilman, Plaintiff’s counsel, on May 12, 2016 for review. See Appendix A for the revised Special Education
70

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 71 of 88
Program Description Template proposed for use during the 2016-2017 school year with edits by the LDOE and IMs highlighted within the document. The “PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template” for each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter School was submitted by RSD personnel on April 22, 2016. A review of these documents indicated that 100% of the NOLA Charter LEAs completed the Special Education Program Description Template during the 2015-2016 school year.
Status of Compliance The “PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template” revised by the LDOE and IMs on May 11, 2016 is judged to include the required components as outlined in Section IV. D.3. in the CJ.
Due to the fact that an IM was not secured until after December, 2015, the LDOE made the decision to move forward and required each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA to complete the draft “PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template” by January 29, 2016. Although this document had not received final approval from all parties, 100% of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter Schools completed and submitted to the LDOE the “Special Education Program Description Template” within the required timeline. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the Special Education Program Description completion requirements as outlined in Section IV.D.3. of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. As noted previously, the IMs have completed a detailed review of each NOLA Charter Schools’ “Special Education
71

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 72 of 88
Program Description Template” and provided specific feedback and recommendations directly to Kathe Zolman, LDOE Attorney, on June 2, 2016.
Section IV.D.3 of the CJ also requires that each NOLA Charter LEA disseminate its’ Special Education Program Description to all parents of students with disabilities, post the program description on the LEAs website and post a link to all NOLA LEAs “Special Education Program Description” templates on the RSD’s website. Currently, there is no evidence the abovementioned implementation activities as required under Section IV.D.3 of the CJ were completed by during the 2015-2016 school term. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance the dissemination requirements of this section of the CJ. However, as noted previously, the IMs held a phone conference with LDOE officials on June 2, 2016 and were informed the abovementioned dissemination requirements would be completed prior to June 30, 2016.
Recommendations It is recommended that each NOLA Charter LEA update their current “Special Education Program Description” templates, incorporate the IMs suggested recommendations and submit updated templates to the LDOE and IMs for review prior by July 1, 2016. Once approved by the LDOE and IMs, it is also recommended that each NOLA Charter LEAs Special Education Program Description template be made available to parents of students with disabilities, be posted on each LEA’s website, posted on the RSD’s website, and at the Family Resource Center as outlined in Section IV.D.3 of the CJ. Evidence of all dissemination requirements should be provided to the
72

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 73 of 88

IMs by June 30, 2016. Once received, the IMs will evaluate the status of compliance for this requirement of the CJ and these findings will be reported in the biannual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.

4.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall annually develop a written description of

OPSB's special education program, including, at a minimum: (a) the name and contact

information of special education contacts at the district level and at the school level; (b)

a description of how pupil appraisal, special education, and related services are

provided; (c) a description of how the OPSB plans to provide the continuum of special

education placements for students whose IEP placement is outside of the regular

education setting; (d) the current enrollment rate of students with disabilities served by

each OPSB school; (e) the current suspension rate of students with disabilities served by

each OPSB school; (f) the number of students with disabilities who are removed for

disciplinary reasons for more than 10 school days in one academic year; and (g) an

indication of the OPSB schools’ accessibility to individuals with mobility impairments.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall require that the OPSB special education program

description is made available to parents of students with disabilities at each school site,

on each school’s website under its jurisdiction, and on OPSB’s website (p. 13 of CJ).

Current Findings Wayne Stewart, counsel for the Defendant-Intervenor (OPSB), provided the IMs with the OPSB’s policy entitled “OPSB Special Education Program Description” for review on February 28, 2016. The IMs reviewed and provided feedback on this document on April 4, 2016. It should be noted that Wayne Stewart, OPSB Counsel, requested the
73

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 74 of 88
OPSB be allowed to complete a single, parish-wide “Special Education Program Description” template. This request was agreed upon by Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco and the IMs during a meeting at the LDOE on February 18, 2016.
Status of Compliance It should be noted that OPSB adopted the LDOE draft “Special Education Program Description” template. As mentioned previously, the IMs have reviewed the final draft of this “Special Education Program Description” template and believe it includes the required components as outlined in Section IV. D.4 of the CJ. Although the “Special Education Program Description” template had not received final approval from all parties, OPSB submitted a completed “Special Education Program Description” template for the 2015-2016 school term. As such, OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the completion requirements outlined in Section IV.D.4. of the CJ, for the 2015-2016 school year.
Section IV.D. 4 of the CJ also requires that each OPSB LEA disseminate the OPSB “Special Education Program Description” template to all parents of students with disabilities, post the program description on the LEAs website and post on the OPSB website. Currently, the OPSB has provided no evidence the abovementioned implementation activities as required under Section IV.D. 4 of the CJ were completed during the 2015-2016 school term. As such, the OPSB is judged to be in Noncompliance with the dissemination requirements outlined in the CJ. When received,
74

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 75 of 88

the IMs will review evidence for this IA and will report the status of compliance for this requirement of the CJ in the bi-annual due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
Recommendations It is recommended OPSB update their current “Special Education Program Description” and incorporate the IMs suggested recommendations. These revisions should be submitted to the IMs for review by June 30, 2016. Once reviewed by the IMs, it is also recommended that OPSB ensure the “OPSB Special Education Program Description” template is posted on each OPSB LEA’s website and the OPSB website as required in Section IV.D.4 of the CJ. Evidence of these dissemination requirements should be provided to the IMs on or before June 30, 2016.

5.

The State Defendants shall require each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in

New Orleans to develop a written complaint investigation protocol describing the

school’s process for investigating allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability.

The protocol shall include the contact information of the individual at the school

responsible for investigating complaints of alleged discrimination; a process by which

parents may make complaints; a timeline for the school to conduct an investigation; the

steps to be taken or the process by which the school will conduct the investigation; the

process by which the school will disseminate the outcome of the investigation; and

corrective action that may be undertaken as a result of noncompliance. A summary

description of the protocol shall be widely disseminated to parents of students with

disabilities enrolled at the school. The complaint investigation protocols shall be

75

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 76 of 88

developed for the sole purpose of investigating allegations of enrollment discrimination arising under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the ADA and shall not supplant the complaint management system or due process complaint procedures pursuant to the IDEA (pp. 13-14 of CJ).

a.

The State shall develop a model written complaint investigation protocol that

meets the requirements identified in this section. This model will be available to any

school upon request, and will be provided to each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school by

March 1, 2015 and every school year thereafter (p. 14 of CJ).

b. Upon receipt of a complaint related to the enrollment practices of Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools, the State will: (i) provide the complainant in writing, either via electronic or U.S. Mail, with the contact information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal services providers; and (ii) where required under IDEA, initiate an investigation of the complaint (p. 14 of CJ).

Current Findings Ty Manieri, LDOE counsel, submitted the LDOE document entitled “LEA Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” template (see Appendix A for Model template) to Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco, and the IMs on January 15,2016 for review. Additionally, this “Compliant Procedures” policy was discussed and approved by all parties on February 18, 2016 during a meeting with Ty Manieri, LDOE counsel, Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, Plaintiff’s counsel, Eden Heilman and Jennifer Coco, and the IMs.
76

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 77 of 88
The LDOE disseminated the approved “LEA Disability Discrimination Compliant Procedures” template to all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter Schools and recommended formal adoption by April 22, 2016. RSD personnel submitted completed templates from each LEA to the IMs on April 22, 2016. A review of documents provided by the NOLA charter schools indicated that 100% of the LEAs adopted the “LEA Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” template as directed by the LDOE.
Status of Compliance – Adoption of Complaint Procedures All NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter schools have adopted the approved “LEA Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” template as required in Section IV.D.5a of the CJ. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with LEA adoption of the complaint procedures as required in this section of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.
Status of Compliance – Widely Disseminated Summary Description However, it is important to note that Section IV.D.5 of the CJ also requires that a summary description of the complaint protocol be widely disseminated to parents of students with disabilities enrolled in each NOLA Charter LEA. In relation, during a review of each NOLA Charter LEA’s complaint procedures, it was difficult to determine whether each LEA has developed a written plan for disseminating the complaint protocol and/or whether these adopted complaint policies were disseminated
77

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 78 of 88
to parents. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Noncompliance with regard to this IA as required in Section IV.D. 5. of the CJ until such time each NOLA Charter LEA provides evidence of how the LEAs adopted discrimination compliant policies and how these procedures are routinely communicated to parents, as well as, evidence verifying the complaint protocol was disseminated to parents of students with disabilities enrolled in NOLA Charter LEAs during the 2015-2016 school year.
Finally, Section IV.D.5.b of the CJ also requires the LDOE to provide complainants, in writing, with contact information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal service providers; and where required under the IDEA, initiate an investigation. Currently, the LDOE has provided no evidence for the completion of this activity as required by the CJ. As such, the LDOE is currently judged to be in Noncompliance with this section of the CJ. The IMs will evaluate any evidence submitted for this requirement of the CJ during June, 2016 and report findings in the IMs bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
Recommendations It is recommended that each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA provide a written plan for disseminating the LEA’s adopted “Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” template to parents of students with disabilities along with evidence of dissemination to parents as required under Section IV.D.5 of the CJ. This evidence should be submitted to the LDOE and IMs for review by June 30, 2016. In relation, it is also recommended the LDOE provide evidence of compliance with requirements in
78

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 79 of 88
Section IV.D.5.b (i.e. providing complainants with OCR contact information, etc.) of the CJ by June 30, 2016. Once received from the LDOE, a compliance review for these CJ requirements will conducted and these findings will be reported in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.

6.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall develop a written complaint investigation

protocol describing the Defendant-Intervenor’s process for investigating allegations of

discrimination on the basis of disability for all schools within its jurisdiction. The

protocol shall include the contact information of the division of OPSB responsible for

investigating complaints of alleged discrimination; a process by which parents may make

complaints; a timeline for the Defendant-Intervenor to conduct an investigation; the steps

to be taken or the process by which the Defendant-Intervenor will conduct the

investigation; the process by which the Defendant-Intervenor will disseminate the

outcome of the investigation; and corrective action that may be undertaken as a result of

noncompliance. A summary description of the protocol shall be widely disseminated to

parents of students with disabilities enrolled in schools under the jurisdiction of the

Defendant-Intervenor. This complaint investigation protocol shall be developed for the

sole purpose of investigating allegations of enrollment discrimination pursuant to Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, and shall not supplant the complaint

management system or due process complaint procedures pursuant to the IDEA (p. 14 of

CJ).

79

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 80 of 88
Current Findings Wayne Stewart, counsel for the Defendant-Intervenor, indicated that OPSB would adopt the approved LDOE “ LEA-Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” template for the 2016-2017 school year in a meeting at the LDOE with all parties on February 18, 2016.
Status of Compliance Currently, the OPSB has provided no evidence to indicate that OPSB has (a) formally adopted an approved complaint protocol, (b) provided a plan for dissemination and /or (c) verified the adopted complaint procedures have been disseminated to parents of students with disabilities. As such, the OPSB is currently judged to be in Noncompliance with fulfilling these required implementation activities as outlined in Section IV.D.6 of the CJ.
Recommendations It is recommended that OPSB disseminate the adopted “Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” template to school principals of each OPSB LEA and secure written verification of review (e.g., signed attestation form). Additionally, it is recommended that each OPSB LEA submit a written plan for disseminating the adopted “Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures” to parents of students with disabilities along with evidence of dissemination to the IMs for review by June 30, 2016. Upon receipt, the IMs will review this documentation and the compliance status for this IA will be reported in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
80

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 81 of 88

7.

The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which students with

disabilities choose not to reenroll at each LEA in New Orleans each school year

(“mobility rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for

targeted monitoring. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews,

and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in in

Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of

noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated

noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance

and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in

Addendum A (p. 14 of CJ).

a.

The mobility rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of students

with disabilities who are enrolled in a nonterminal grade at an LEA in New Orleans

between September 1 and May 31 and are not enrolled at the LEA on October 1 of the

following school year by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA

on October 1 (p. 14 of CJ).

b.

The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall

supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant

to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA

pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence

81

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 82 of 88
LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 15 of CJ). Current Findings The LDOE provided the IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel with a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term, the specific areas in which the selected LEA was being monitored, methods for LEA selection and methods of monitoring (e.g., staff interviews, desk file reviews using monitoring instrument described in Addendum A of the CJ) in correspondence dated on January 25, 2016. It is also important to note that the targeted LEAs received formal notification of monitoring from LDOE and participated in planning calls with LDOE monitoring staff in late January, 2016.
A student enrollment spreadsheet entitled “Rate at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Choose Not to Reenroll Between 2013-14 to Oct. 1, 2014: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish” was submitted to the IMs on April 26, 2016. This spreadsheet was used to select LEAs for targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability by calculating the total number of students with disabilities who were enrolled in a nonterminal grade in each LEA from September 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014 and who were not enrolled in the same LEA on October 1, 2014 divided by enrollment of students with disabilities enrolled on October 1, 2014. This method of determining mobility rate was verified by the IMs and determined to be consistent with the guidelines required under Section IV(D)(7) of the CJ and Section D(1)(a) and D(1)(b) on page 6 of Addendum A. As required by the CJ, three schools were identified for targeted monitoring during the
82

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 83 of 88
spring 2016 semester in the area of Enrollment Stability.
Selected LEAs included: 1. G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy (46.7% annual mobility) 2. Joseph A. Craig (61.8% annual mobility) 3. Mildred Osborne (46.3% annual mobility)
As required under Section 4.a and 4.b specified in Addendum A of the CJ, the LDOE is required to conduct interviews with at least one (1) general education teacher of students with disabilities, one (1) special education teacher, one (1) general education administrator, and one (1) special education administrator or coordinator at each LEA selected for targeted monitoring. The LDOE selected to conduct staff interviews using the Related Services section of the monitoring instrument to assess the area of Enrollment Stability.
The LDOE submitted the phone conference interview schedule for all selected charter LEAs across all four areas of targeting monitoring to the IMs on February 4, 2016. Staff interviews for G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy, Joseph A. Craig and Mildred Osborne were conducted by LDOE Monitoring Staff and IMs via phone conference on February 16-18, 2016. Summaries of phone interviews with school staff were submitted by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification on February 19, 2016 and March 4, 2016. In relation, the list of school staff from each charter school who participated in phone interviews was submitted by the LDOE to the IMs for review and verification on March 4, 2016 and May 10, 2016. To further evaluate Enrollment Stability, the LDOE and IMs
83

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 84 of 88
also conducted desk reviews for selected student files enrolled in each targeted LEA using the Related Service provisions section of the monitoring protocol based on guidance from Section D(2)(b) of Addendum A of the CJ (p. 6).
The LDOE provided the IMs with a list of identified students for each targeted LEA during an onsite visit to the Department on March 22-24, 2016. A total of ten (10) students were selected by the LDOE for review from G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy. All 10 students who met the required criteria for selection received speech/language services, social work services and/or counseling as a related service during the 2014-2015 school year. Joseph A. Craig also submitted to the LDOE a roster of ten (10) students. With the exception of two (2) students submitted, all other selected students received speech/language services, social work services, occupational therapy, adaptive PE and/or physical therapy as a related service during the 2014-2015 school year. Finally, Mildred Osborne submitted a roster of ten (10) students. With the exception of three (3) students submitted, all other selected students received speech/language services and/or psychological services as a Related Services during the 2014-2015 school year.
Prior to formal review, the LDOE monitoring staff provided each charter with an additional document entitled “Related Services and Enrollment Stability Monitoring Checklist” to assist LEAs in the submission of required documents for the desk file review. This checklist was provided to the IMs for review on February 15, 2016 and included four items pertaining to related services documentation: 1) evidence of prior written notification, 2) IEP signature pages (first and last page), 3) documentation of
84

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 85 of 88
related services including the method of measurement to achieve goal listed on the IEP (e.g., teacher logs, observational data, teacher checklists, student work samples, tally sheet, etc.) and 4) related services schedule for each student (include location of services, schedule of service delivery, student roster, and name and contact information of person responsible for providing services).
At the request of the IMs, the LDOE also provided each student’s 2014-2015 and/or 2015-2016 IEP and related documentation (e.g., SER related service reports, SER eligibility reports, Related Services and Enrollment Stability Monitoring Checklists complete by the charter school personnel, all information submitted from each LEA for each student to the LDOE to assist in the completion of protocol reviews for the identified students in the identified charters.
To evaluate Enrollment Stability, LDOE monitoring personnel and the IMs completed desk file reviews between March, 22, 2016 and May 5, 2016 for each of the ten (10) student files selected from each of the three (3) LEAs targeted for Enrollment Stability (G.W. Carver, Joseph A. Craig and Mildred Osborne) using the Related Services section of the Monitoring Instrument based on guidance from Section D(2)(b) of Addendum A of the CJ (p. 6). The completed LDOE desk file reviews were submitted to the IMs from April 26, 2016 through May 5, 2016 to assist the IMs with completing a comprehensive analysis of protocol findings.
As agreed upon in the meeting with all parties in Judge Jay Zainey’s chambers on
85

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 86 of 88
January 6, 2016, a detailed review of aggregated data from the protocol reviews conducted during the spring 2016 school term will be presented in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016. A preliminary review of protocol findings indicated consistent agreement between the LDOE monitoring staff and the IMs that acceptable practices were observed in the majority of areas assessed with regard to Related Services provisions. However, both the LDOE monitoring staff and the IMs also identified varying degrees of concern with regard to the development of (a) meaningful PLAAFP statements, (b) measureable goals and short-term objectives and (c) documentation of related service provisions, including documentation specifying the types and frequency of services provided, as well as, data gathered to evaluate student progress as required by the IEP. A detailed review of these protocol findings will be presented in the IMs biannual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
Status of Compliance-Targeted Monitoring Based on the IMs review of the documents submitted by LDOE and verification of the calculations provided in the LDOE Enrollment Stability database and appropriate LEA selections, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with completing these IA’s as required under Section IV (D) (7) of the CJ and Section D (1) (a), D (1) (b) and D (1) (c) of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.
Based on a review of the documents submitted by each identified charter school and LDOE’s completion of the student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Related Services protocol, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with
86

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 87 of 88
fulfilling the requirements designated in Section IV(D)(7) of the CJ and Section D(2)(a), D(2)(b), and D(2)(c) on page 6 the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Status of Compliance – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Action As noted previously, the LDOE will issue monitoring reports to all LEAs monitored in the area of Enrollment Stability and issue directives for corrective actions, where appropriate, on June 8, 2016. The completion of required Corrective Action Plans (CAP) for identified LEAs is scheduled to occur by June 30, 2016. Upon completion, a review to verify LDOE’s compliance status with Sections G(1)(a), G(1)(b), G(1)(c) and G(2)(a), G(2)(b), G(2)(c), G(2)(d) and G(2)(e) on page 8 of the Addendum will be conducted and these findings will reported in the bi-annual report due to the Court on August 1, 2016.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to follow the requirements under Section (D)(IV)(7) of the CJ and targeted monitoring procedures as outlined Sections D(1) and D(2) on page 6 of the Addendum of the CJ for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years. The IMs will continue to review charter selection and verify LDOE calculations as required by the CJ for each targeted monitoring during the 2016-2017 and 2016-2017 school years. The LDOE shall also continue to perform student file reviews and staff interviews to address Enrollment Stability using the required Related Services or Discipline protocol as outlined in Addendum A of the CJ. IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify the completion of activities required by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ and Addendum A to the CJ. The LDOE is strongly encouraged to address the concerns identified during protocol reviews conducted by
87

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 339 Filed 06/20/16 Page 88 of 88 monitoring personnel and IMs in forthcoming monitoring reports to three (3) identified LEAs targeted for monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability. In addition, specific corrective actions should be recommended by the LDOE to address all identified areas of noncompliance and/or areas with identified weakness. The IMs shall review the monitoring reports submitted by the LDOE and shall collaboratively participate with the LDOE in the development of corrective action plans to address identified areas of noncompliance. As noted previously, the IMs also recommend for consideration by all parties that the staff interview process and student file reviews to address Enrollment Stability be completed on-site at selected LEAs by both the IMs and LDOE personnel during the fall 2016 term for LEAs identified for targeted reviews based on an analysis of 2015-2016 enrollment stability data.
88

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 1 of 102
Office of the Independent Monitors P.B., et al., v. John White, et al. (Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049)
Bi-Annual Status Report November 7, 2016
Pursuant to Section V (8) of the Consent Judgment (CJ), the Independent Monitors shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with reports describing the steps taken by the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor to implement the Agreement and evaluate the extent to which the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor have complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. Pursuant to Section V (8)(a), the Monitor shall issue an initial report every 120 days after the implementation of the Agreement, and then every 180 days thereafter. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of the students. Pursuant to Section V (8)(b) of the CJ, the Independent Monitors shall evaluate the state of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance and (2) Noncompliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess compliance and interview any necessary staff or personnel. The Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from the State Defendants or Defendant-Intervenor regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by the Monitor to assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor’s findings. Pursuant to Section V (9) of the CJ, reports issued by the Monitor shall not be admissible against the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor
1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 2 of 102
in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by the State Defendants, the DefendantIntervenor, or the Plaintiff’s counsel.
The IM bi-annual status report addresses several activities as required by the CJ. First, the LDOE and/or OPSB have developed several model documents designed to meet specific requirements of the CJ. These model documents include the Child Find Written Guidance Model Template, Special Education Program Description Model Template, Procedural Safeguards Checklist – Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities Model Template, Model Discipline Policy for Students with Disabilities, Undocumented Suspension Guidance Model Template, Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools Model Template, Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance Model Template, Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures Model Template. As previously stated in the IM status report to the Court dated June 3, 2016, the parties have approved the content contained within each of these documents. In relation, these model documents were presented to the Court in Appendix A attached to the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016. The CJ requires that charter LEAs provide evidence that they have reviewed or, when relevant, disseminated this information each school year. As such, the IMs provide an update regarding the status of the model documents, additional documents (e.g., Student Codes of Conduct, LEA Handbooks, Model PBIS documents, etc.), and related activities for the 2016- 2017 school year in each relevant section of this bi-annual status report. In addition, related documents (e.g., revised Child Find Written Guidance Model Template for RSD and OPSB LEAs for the 2016-2017 school year, Office of Civil Rights Complaint and Investigation Document for the 16-17 school year, school
2

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 3 of 102
links to Special Education Program Descriptions for RSD and OPSB LEAs) are located in Appendix A for review by the parties. Second, the CJ requires that the LDOE engage in monitoring activities for LEAs selected for targeted monitoring annually. As such, the IMs report the activities and decisions made by the LDOE as related to the required targeted monitoring activities in each relevant section of the bi- annual status report. However, an overview of the monitoring procedures used by the LDOE is provided here to assist readers in understanding the process that was used to complete targeted monitoring as required by the CJ. Additional information is also included in each relevant section of the bi-annual status report. School selection for each area of targeted monitoring was completed by LDOE legal counsel, LDOE monitoring personnel and LDOE technology/data personnel using calculation rates outlined in Addendum A of the CJ (p. 1 for Child Find, p. 3 for Related Services, p. 4 for Discipline, p. 6 for Enrollment Stability) on November 30, 2015. Each LEA selected for targeted monitoring from the 20142015 school year was sent a notification email from LDOE Director of State-wide Monitoring from January 18-21, 2016. This notification provided an overview of the requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols. Copies of these monitoring notification emails are located in Appendix B for review. Planning phone calls were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel from January 25-29, 2016, with each LEA in order to assist the school personnel in understanding the CJ requirements for targeted monitoring, provide guidance in
3

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 4 of 102
submission of required documents in a secure format as outlined by specific checklists developed by the LDOE for each area (e.g., Child Find Documentation Checklist, Discipline Student Documentation Checklist, Related Services and Enrollment Stability Monitoring Checklist), and to answer any questions or address any concerns. These checklists are provided in Appendix B for review. LDOE monitoring personnel submitted the staff interview schedule to the IMs on February 4, 2016. LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs conducted staff interviews via phone using a Side-by-Side Interview Tool developed by the LDOE across two weeks from February 16-26, 2016. This interview tool included three components (e.g., specific protocol items from each area included in Addendum A of the CJ; a listing of required components used to address the protocol item; comments provided by the school personnel). A list of interviewees and copies of the completed interview tool for each LEA are located in Appendix B for review. The IMs did not participate in staff interviews on 2/18/16 due to attending a meeting at the LDOE will all parties. LDOE monitoring personnel conducted desk file audits for each of the targeted LEAs from March 22, 2016 – May 5, 2016 using protocol items from each area of Addendum A to the CJ. The IMs reviewed the documents provided by the LEAs to complete the desk file reviews and the protocols completed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and completed independent reviews. Outcomes from the LDOE desk file audits are located in Appendix B. With regard to compliance determinations issued based on findings of targeted monitoring, the LDOE reported to the IMs that noncompliance for an individual student case was judged based on whether a majority of specific IDEA requirements being assessed were found to be inadequate (e.g., 3 of 5 goals observed to be unmeasurable). In relation, systemic noncompliance was issued when less than 80% of the student files reviewed revealed noncompliance for any specific IDEA standard assessed. The issue of determining
4

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 5 of 102
individual and systemic compliance or noncompliance was discussed further during an onsite meeting with the IMs and the parties on September 22, 2016 where it was agreed upon by the IMs and the parties that compliance determinations for individual students shall be consistent with the 100% compliance standard outlined in the IDEA. That is, during all future targeted monitoring activities, any single finding of noncompliance for any specific IDEA standard being assessed for an individual student in the areas of Child Find, Related Services, Discipline and Enrollment Stability will be judged to reflect noncompliance and will require immediate individual corrective remedy (i.e. Individual Corrective Action Plan). Similarly, in terms of systemic concerns, it was agreed upon by all parties that systemic noncompliance would be determined for any IDEA standard assessed when less than 80% of the student sample reviewed fails to meet the 100% individual student compliance standard for any IDEA requirement evaluated and would result in mandatory systemic remedy (i.e. Corrective Action Plan) for the LEA.
In relation, specific outcomes are discussed in each relevant section of the bi-annual stats report. LDOE monitoring personnel submitted cover letters, complete monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, and Corrective Action Plan or Recommendation Plan templates to each LEA and the IMs on June 8, 2016. LDOE monitoring personnel provided technical assistance to school personnel from targeted LEAs regarding the monitoring reports, initial development of Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) or Recommendation Plans, and to address questions and/or concerns from June 23, 2016 through July 20, 2016. The IMs and LDOE monitoring personnel discussed edits to CAPs or Recommendation Plans on July 26, 2016. LDOE
5

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 6 of 102
monitoring personnel provided additional technical assistance to targeted LEAs regarding final development of CAPs or Recommendation Plans based on receipt of feedback from the IMs on August 3-4, 2016. The final CAPs or Recommendation Plans for each LEA are located in Appendix B. In relation, any rubrics submitted to the LEAs by LDOE monitoring personnel to assist them in addressing the requirements of the CAP or Recommendation Plan are also located in Appendix B for review. Follow-up on-site monitoring visits will be conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs for each LEA using the CJ protocols. The follow-up on-site visits for schools selected for targeted monitoring are tentatively scheduled to occur during February 2017. Results of the follow-up on-site monitoring visits will be submitted in subsequent IM bi-annual status reports.
The IM bi-annual status report is organized by each Substantive Provision section of the CJ and each section begins with the language taken directly from the Agreement identified in italics. Where appropriate, language from Addendum A (Monitoring Protocols) to the CJ is also incorporated into the status report. The IMs then provide a report of current findings based on a review of materials submitted by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE), Recovery School District (RSD), Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB), and each charter school association or charter school with particular focus on information submitted to the IMs from January 15, 2016 through October 14, 2016. A status of compliance section and a recommendations section follows each report of current findings in the status report.
Section IV(A) Child Find (pp. 6-8 of the CJ) 1. The State Defendants, after conferring with the Defendant-Intervener, shall develop a schedule identifying the assignment of Child Find responsibilities within New Orleans (p. 6
6

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 7 of 102
of the CJ). a. The schedule shall allocate responsibility for identifying, locating, and evaluating individuals, aged 3 - 21, suspected of having a disability, including individuals who are: not currently enrolled in school; enrolled in a non-public school in New Orleans; detained in a juvenile detention center or adult correctional facility in New Orleans; and/or housed in a public or private hospital, institution, or other health care facility in New Orleans (p. 6 of the CJ). b. The schedule shall include procedures for ensuring that an evaluation initiated at one New Orleans LEA is completed within applicable timelines, even where a child moves to another New Orleans LEA (p. 7 of the CJ). c. Within thirty (30) days of the assignment of an Independent Monitor, the State Defendants shall submit the schedule to the Independent Monitor for review and approval. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the schedule to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 7 of the CJ).
Current Findings As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A)(1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the template entitled, PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance and verification of the receipt of the document by the LEAs.
7

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 8 of 102
For the 2016-17 school year, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted proposed changes to the PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance template to the LDOE and IMs on June 15, 2016 specifically to address concerns related to the failure to conduct comprehensive evaluations when a student is suspected of having a disability under IDEA, timely completion of initial evaluations, evaluations for transfer students and types of records that should be submitted to a receiving LEA when a student transfers within the RSD. The LDOE submitted the revised document to OPSB on July 19, 2016 for review and revision. The suggested revisions submitted by the Plaintiff’s counsel on June 15, 2016 were accepted by LDOE and OPSB. In addition, OPSB added language regarding the creation of Type 3b charter schools returning to the jurisdiction of OPSB. Revised versions of the PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance template were submitted to the IMs by LDOE on August 4, 2016 and OPSB on August 12, 2016. Both versions of the revised PB v White Child Find Written Guidance template are located in Appendix A for review by the parties.
Status of Compliance As of August 9, 2016, the document has been disseminated to all RSD LEAs, and the school principals or school leaders have submitted signed attestations that they will adhere to the guidelines contained within the revised PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance template. Based on a review of the revised document and receipt of signed attestations from each LEA school principal or school leader, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
8

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 9 of 102
As of August 26, 2016, the document has been disseminated to all OPSB LEAs, and the school principals or school leaders have submitted signed attestations that they will adhere to the guidelines contained within the revised PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance template. Based on a review of the revised document and receipt of signed attestations from each LEA school principal or school leader, the OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
Recommendations The LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit the revised PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance template by August 1st for the 2017-2018 school year and subsequent schools years for the duration of the CJ. The IMs will continue to verify that school principals or school leaders of each LEA have submitted signed attestations and adhere to the guidelines.
2. The State Defendants shall require that the charter application and renewal processes for Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans require each organization seeking issuance or renewal of a charter to provide a description of the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide pupil appraisal services, including a description of qualified pupil appraisal personnel designated to serve on each organization’s School Building Level Committee (p. 7 of CJ).
Current Findings As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(2) for the 2015-2016
9

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 10 of 102
school year as all LEAs provided descriptions, through the Special Education Program Description template, of the school’s staff and/or outside contractors providing pupil appraisal services.
For the 2016-17 school year, the LDOE provided the IMs with an excel worksheet on August 4, 2016 which contained the website links to the Special Education Program Description template for each LEA under the jurisdiction of the Recovery School District New Orleans Charter Schools (55 total LEAs) and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (5 total LEAs) for the 2016-2017 school year. The LDOE informed the IMs that four LEAs (e.g., KIPP Renaissance, Pierre Capdau, Lake Area New Technology High School, Mary D. Coghill Accelerated) transitioned to OPSB jurisdiction for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs verified that the final versions of the Special Education Program Description template, including the description of charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide pupil appraisal services, and a description of qualified pupil appraisal personnel for each LEA were placed on each school website on August 10, 2016. In relation, the IMs confirmed that links to each LEA template were located online at the LDOE website and that the LDOE link was located online at the enrollnola website. A table of website links is located in the Appendix A for review by the parties.
Dr. Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, provided a revised copy of the Special Education Program Description template for OPSB on June 30, 2016 and the Type 3b Charter School Association, Friends of King, on July 13, 2016. A review of these documents by the IMs revealed that the descriptions of the school’s staff and/or outside contractors providing pupil appraisal
10

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 11 of 102
services components of (Section D of the 2016-2017 school year version) the Special Education Program Description template was completed as required by Sections Section IV(A)(2) of the CJ. The IMs verified that the 2016-2017 school year version of the Special Education Program Description template for both OPSB and the Friends of King School District were located online on August 10, 2016. As of October 14, 2016, the IMs have reviewed each OPSB LEA website to evaluate the status of placement of the link to the OPSB program description. This review also included schools that transferred to the jurisdiction of the OPSB for the 2016-2017 school year (e.g., Mary Coghill, Lake Area New Technology, Pierre A Capdau, KIPP Renaissance). Based on this review, a total of 24 of 28 (86%) LEAs have successfully provided a link to the OPSB Special Education Program template on their respective websites. To date, only four (4) OPSB LEAs were not observed to have a link established from their individual school websites to the OPSB Special Education Program Description. These four (4) schools included Eleanor McMain Charter School (7-12), McDonogh #35 Middle School, McDonogh #35 High School, and Robert R. Moton Charter School (PK-7). Based on the IMs communication with OPSB officials, these school sites are currently in the process of constructing their respective school- based websites. Correspondence was received from OPSB counsel on October 14, 2016, indicating that McDonogh #35 Middle and High Schools and Eleanor McMain Charter School would be sending home physical copies of the template with students on that date; however, this action, while notable, does not meet the availability requirements achieved by other LEAs.
Status of Compliance Based on completion of the 2016-2017 version of the Special Education Program Description template by LEAs under the jurisdiction of RSD and placement of the completed
11

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 12 of 102
template on each LEA website, LDOE website, and link established from the enrollnola website, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (2) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
The 2016-2017 school year version of the Special Education Program Description template has also been completed by OPSB and the Friends of King School District and placed on the OPSB district website. The OPSB Executive Director of Exceptional Children’s Services, submitted a letter to the IMs on August 8, 2016 reporting that the school leaders have been provided the link to the OPSB district website and have attested to complying with adding the link to the 2016- 2017 school year version of the OPSB Special Education Program Description template to their individual school websites. However, as noted previously, a review by the IMs on August 31, 2016; October 7, 2016, and October 14, 2016 revealed that a majority (i.e., 24 of 28) of the LEAs have successfully established the required link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description for the 2016-2017 school year. As noted previously, only four LEAs (i.e., Eleanor McMain Charter School, McDonogh #35 Middle School, McDonogh #35 High School, and Robert R. Moton Charter) are currently in noncompliance with this dissemination requirement of the CJ. However, given the vast majority of OPSB LEAs have complied with this dissemination provision of the CJ, a compliance determination in this regard will be reserved until the end of the fall 2016-2017 school year and reported in the IMs bi-annual status report. As such, to achieve a “substantial compliance” for this required CJ dissemination activity for the 2016-2017 school year, all LEAs under OPSB’s jurisdiction shall have the link established to the OPSB Special Education Program Description by December 15, 2016.
12

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 13 of 102
Recommendations The LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit a Special Education Program Description template by August 1st for the 2017-2018 school year and each subsequent year for the duration of the CJ. The IMs will continue to review all completed Special Education Program Description templates for existing charter schools, new charter schools, or charter schools scheduled for renewal during the 2017-2018 school year prior to the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE at the intervals designated above to ensure that the template meets compliance with this section of the CJ. Further, the IMs will continue to verify the public availability of completed documents (i.e., placement on each LEA website, placement on the LDOE website, placement on the enrollnola website).
3. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans identifies new students as eligible for services under the IDEA (“annual new identification rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students who: have Section 504 Plans; are in the RTI process; are under consideration by a School Building Level Committee; failed two (2) or more academic subjects in the prior school year; or are subject to more than ten (10) days of disciplinary removal during the school year. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not
13

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 14 of 102
reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 7 of CJ). a. The annual new identification rate for each LEA shall be calculated by dividing the number of students each LEA identifies for initial eligibility under the IDEA between July 1 and June 30 by the total number of students enrolled in the LEA on October 1 (p. 7 of CJ). b. b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 7 of CJ).
Overview of Status of Compliance for Monitoring Activities for the 2015-2016 School Year
The IMs review of compliance with this section of the CJ consisted of evaluation of the three components of the LDOE’s monitoring activities. Specifically, the components being assessed for compliance included: (1) Identification of the charter schools selected for monitoring (e.g., determination of the annual new identification rate for each LEA and evaluation of the LDOE calculations); (2) Completion of targeted monitoring activities by the LDOE as established by the CJ and Addendum to the CJ (e.g., completion of appropriate monitoring activities by the LDOE, appropriate selection of student files, appropriate completion of the monitoring protocols, and correct identification of systemic or individual compliance and/or noncompliance) and (3) Development of appropriate corrective actions “sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur.” (p. 7 of CJ). As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to
14

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 15 of 102
the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(3)(a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the documents submitted by LDOE and verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs.
As previously reported in the IM Status Report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, Section IV(A)(3)(b) and Addendum A of the CJ and Section A(2)(a) the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance for the 2015-16 school year as the result of the targeted LEA’s failure to submit the required random, representative sample of students. After reviewing the LDOE Monitoring Reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, and the plans for corrective action for Joseph A. Craig Charter School, Lake Area New Technology Early College High School, and Sophie B. Wright Charter School, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the corrective actions requirement under this section of the CJ for the 2015- 2016 school year. However, regardless of the LDOE’s demonstration of compliance with conducting targeted monitoring activities in the area of Child Find, the fact that only students with Section 504 plans were selected for review significantly limited the IMs and LDOE monitor’s ability to reliably assess required ongoing Child Find activities across targeted NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs. As such, the LDOE shall be required to demonstrate two consecutive years of compliance with regard to targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find as required by the CJ. Additional information for each required component under this section of the CJ is reported below.
Current Findings – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Actions for
15

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 16 of 102
the 2015-2016 School Year
Identification of Schools Selected for Targeted Monitoring The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The targeted monitoring notification email for each LEA is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The LDOE also conducted planning calls with each identified charter during late January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format, and desk file review process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on April 26, 2016 that included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools. The “New Identification %” column used the formula specified in Addendum A of the CJ. A review of the spreadsheet and related materials from the LDOE by the IMs revealed that the following three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring as required in this section of the CJ. The three schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 semester in the area of Child Find included Joseph A. Craig Charter School, Lake Area New Tech Early College High School, and Sophie B. Wright Charter School.
School Staff Interviews
16

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 17 of 102
As mentioned in the previous IM report dated June 3, 2016, each LEA selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 in the area of Child Find (e.g., Joseph A Craig Charter School, Lake Area New Technology Early College High School, Sophie B. Wright Charter School) was required to participate in a school staff conference call and submit materials for a desk review. The required pre-monitoring staff conference call was conducted with each LEA during the weeks of February 15-19, 2016 or February 22 -26, 2016 to obtain information from the school staff at each LEA regarding the practices and procedures as related to the area of Child Find. A standard bank of interview questions taken directly from the Addendum to the CJ was utilized by LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., Director of State-wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) to probe responses in the identified areas of interest and responses were encouraged from all staff members in the conference call. A review of participants revealed that a school administrator, special education administrator, general education teacher, and special education teacher participated in the staff interview process for Joseph A. Craig Charter School. A review of participants revealed that the chief executive officer, a school administrator, and the special education administrator participated in the staff interview process for Lake Area New Technology Early College High School. A review of participants revealed that the charter director, assistant charter director, a school administrator, the special education administrator, a general education teacher, and an outside agency professional participated in the staff interview process for Sophie B. Wright Charter School. Specific information regarding the participants involved in the interview process and outcomes of staff interviews is located in Appendix B. The LDOE concluded that the “[r]esults of this interview process revealed no findings of non-compliance during the interview process. The responses provided by the school staff satisfactorily addressed
17

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 18 of 102
all interview questions” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016) for Lake Area New Technology School. The LDOE concluded that the “[r] esults of this interview process revealed concerns in the following areas: SBLC referral process, RTI process, implementation and selection of interventions, special education initial evaluation process, determination of eligibility for IDEA and 504, and timely completion of initial evaluations for student transfers” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 3, 2016) for Sophie B. Wright. Finally, the LDOE concluded that the “[r]esults of this interview process revealed concerns regarding implementation of research-based academic interventions, the behavioral referral process and types of behavioral screeners/assessments administered for students with behavioral concerns” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 3, 2016) for Joseph A. Craig. Additional information may be obtained from the monitoring reports attached for each LEA in Appendix B.
Student Desk File Reviews For the desk reviews, a protocol, developed from the Addendum of the CJ, was used by the LDOE monitoring personnel to analyze and rate each student file from March 22, 2016 through May 5, 2016. Specifically, the Child Find Monitoring Protocol included 12 items which were taken directly from the Child Find Monitoring protocol in Addendum A of the CJ and rated as “Yes”, “No”, or “N/A”. In relation, a LDOE monitoring team member (e.g., Director of State- wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) was assigned to lead the special education monitoring activities which included a review of student files and other relevant documentation. Prior to the desk file review, each school was provided with a rubric explaining what the LDOE required from the school in order to evaluate compliance during the desk audit (e.g., LDOE Child Find
18

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 19 of 102
Documentation Checklist located in Appendix A). In relation, the results of the LDOE desk file reviews for each LEA are located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The IMs conducted independent desk reviews of the student files submitted by the LDOE using the Child Find Monitoring Protocol for each targeted LEA, and compared their evaluation of the files with LDOE monitors’ assessments. The results of the desk file reviews are presented below.
As indicated in the IM Status Report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the sample of 31 files from the three (3) LEAs (e.g., Joseph A. Craig, Lake Area New Technology, and Sophie B. Wright) consisted of only students with Section 504 plans. Furthermore, ten (10) of the 31 student files selected were classified as initial Section 504 evaluations and the remaining 21 student files were classified as Section 504 re-evaluations. The restriction of the Child Find sample to only Sections 504 students significantly diminished the number of applicable items on the Child Find Protocol that could be utilized during targeted Desk Reviews. Specifically, for the Section 504 files, Child Find protocol items #2, #4, #7, and #8 each pertain to various forms of “parent permission or parent notice” (i.e., obtaining consent for an initial evaluation, parent request for an initial evaluation, parent notice describing procedures, and/or obtaining parent consent within reasonable time limits). Further, Child Find protocol items #10 and #11 were considered as being “not applicable” as these items were relevant only to students for whom the IDEA eligibility process was completed (i.e., variety of assessment tools were utilized to make eligibility decisions, etc.), and the IDEA re-evaluation process (i.e., data reviewed to confirm continued eligibility).
The sample of initial Section 504 student files included seven (7) students from Sophie B.
19

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 20 of 102
Wright and three (3) students from Joseph A. Craig. No students from Lake Area New Technology were included in the comparison review as this LEA only submitted students who were being re-evaluated for Section 504 services. However, the LDOE monitoring staff did complete case file reviews for the purpose of making recommendations regarding corrective actions for individual students or potential systemic concerns.
When considering the abovementioned concerns with the utility of the Child Find protocol for reviewing only students with Section 504 Accommodation Plans, the comparative analysis between the LDOE and the IMs findings was limited to Child Find Protocol items #1 (i.e., presence of appropriate school personnel in SBLC meetings), #3 (i.e., appropriate intervention and screening activities), and #5 (i.e., evaluation of effectiveness of intervention procedures within the RTI process). With regard to student files who represented reevaluations under Section 504, only item #12 of the Child Find Protocol (i.e., determination of the need of specially designed instruction) was used for comparative purposes. All other Child Find Protocol items were considered “not applicable” for Section 504 initial evaluations or re-evaluations.
With regard to targeted monitoring findings related to LEAs convening SBLC meetings with appropriate team members (i.e., classroom teacher, teacher who referred the student, and principal or designee) to make informed decisions regarding student’s educational or behavioral needs, the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs each identified Lake Area New Technology Charter School as demonstrating noncompliance across a majority of student files with this Child Find activity as related to Section 504 requirements. The LDOE’s review of Joseph A. Craig’s procedures for convening SBLC meetings with appropriate
20

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 21 of 102
team members, revealed compliance in eight (8) of nine (9) files reviewed. In contrast, the IMs review of student files in this regard revealed compliance in zero (0) of three (3) applicable files reviewed. Similar findings were observed for Sophie B. Wright as the findings of LDOE monitoring staff revealed compliance in nine (9) of nine (9) student files reviewed. However, the IMs observed this LEA to convene SBLC meetings with required team members in only two (2) of eight (8) student files reviewed.
In terms of Child Find activities related to intervention and screening activities (i.e. Child Find Protocol item #3), it should be noted both LDOE monitoring staff and the IMs observed noncompliance across a majority of student files for two LEAs (i.e. Joseph A. Craig and Lake Area New Technology Charter School) in relation to Section 504 requirements. However, LDOE desk files reviewed for students with Section 504 accommodation plans enrolled in Sophie B. Wright Charter School revealed compliance in six (6) of seven (7) applicable student files reviewed. In contrast, a concurrent review of these student files revealed compliance for employing appropriate interventions and/or screening procedures in zero (0) of 8 (eight) applicable files reviewed. With regard to effectively evaluating student response to intervention (i.e. Child Find Protocol item #5), it should be noted that targeted desk reviews of selected student files conducted by both LDOE monitoring staff and the IMs consistently revealed noncompliance across a majority of students for Joseph A. Craig, Lake Area New Technology and Sophie B. Wright Charter Schools in relation to Section 504 requirements. Finally, with regard to appropriately determining whether LEAs gathered sufficient data for determining whether students being evaluated under Section 504 required specialized instruction (i.e. Child Find Protocol item # 12), both the LDOE staff and IMs observed noncompliance across a majority of student files for Joseph A. Craig, Lake Area
21

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 22 of 102
New Technology Charter School and Sophie B. Wright Charter Schools.
The IMs and LDOE monitoring personnel discussed potential explanations for the abovementioned Child Find protocol scoring discrepancies during June-August, 2016, which surrounded three major concerns. First, the current Child Find protocol includes a limited number of items applicable for students with Section 504 accommodation plans as well as other student samples specified in the CJ (i.e. students considered by SBLC, students failing two or more subjects, etc.), and generally addresses procedural requirements for students who have been evaluated under the IDEA. Therefore, to address this issue, the IMs, during a September 22, 2016 meeting with the parties, discussed their concerns related to the limitations of the Child Find protocol. Specifically, the IMs expressed concern to the parties that a limited number of items used to assess the broad range of activities required under Child Find requirements would likely result in an unreliable assessment in this area. As such, the IMs recommended making modifications to the current Child Find protocol to allow for a more reliable assessment of Child Find activities occurring across LEAs targeted for monitoring in this area. However, LDOE legal counsel indicated a preference to continue utilizing the Child Find protocol originally approved by the parties in the Addendum to the CJ. LDOE counsel further indicated that by selecting an appropriate random sample of students across at-risk categories as specified in the CJ the approved Child Find protocol would be appropriate and serve as an adequate tool for appropriately measuring Child Find activities. As such, all parties agreed to continue using the approved Child Find protocol for the duration of the CJ. However, the IMs did indicate they would utilize the requirements of LA Bulletin 1508 and 1706 to assist in assessing applicable Child Find protocol items when conducting on site targeted monitoring. However, please note that all judgements by the IMs
22

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 23 of 102
regarding compliance or noncompliance in the area of Child Find will be based on the applicable items located in the Child Find protocol located in Appendix A of the CJ. A second factor that helps to better explain the discrepancies in targeted monitoring findings between the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff is related to the fact that only students with current Section 504 plans were chosen by the LDOE for review during targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find during the spring term of the 2015-2016 school year. Regardless of the limitations of the Child Find protocol approved in the CJ, this significantly limited the sample of students from which compliance with Child Find activities could be reliably judged. The IMs discussed this matter with LDOE monitoring staff during June-July, 2016 as well as with LDOE legal counsel during the September 22, 2016 meeting to ensure a representative sample of students would be selected for each LEA targeted for all future Child Find monitoring that is consistent with the requirements outlined in the CJ.
A final factor that resulted in discrepancies in protocol review findings is related to the application of inconsistent standards of determining compliance or noncompliance for individual student cases reviewed. That is, the IMs consistently judged protocol items as compliant only when 100% of the IDEA requirements (e.g., 4 of 4 required screening methods observed) reviewed in a given student file was judged to be adequate. However, LDOE monitoring staff judged a protocol item as compliant when the majority of IDEA requirements (e.g., 3 of 4 sufficient screening methods) were observed to be compliant. As such, as mentioned previously, to increase consistency and reliability in protocol scoring and issuing compliance determinations, the IMs also discussed with LDOE counsel and monitoring staff a standardized scoring procedure that adheres to the 100% compliance standard required for individual students with disabilities under the IDEA. As previously
23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 24 of 102
mentioned, it was agreed up by all parties that during all future monitoring activities any individual student file reviewed that is judged to reflect less than 100% compliance for any applicable IDEA standard will reflect noncompliance and will require individual corrective action(s) (i.e., Individual CAP).
Finally, the IMs and LDOE personnel reviewed the plans for on-site school visits and selection criteria and scoring of protocols again during on-site meetings and/or phone conferences during the fall 2016 term in order to ensure that students are selected based on requirements established within the CJ.
Corrective Actions to Address Noncompliance On June 8, 2016, the LDOE submitted the cover letters, complete monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, IDEA Monitoring Results Summaries to address findings of noncompliance for identified students and Recommendation Plan templates directly to the LEAs and the IMs. The cover letters, LDOE Monitoring Reports and Recommendation Plans are located in the Appendix B for review by the parties. Based on a “comprehensive review of the special education programming and compliance requirements,” the LDOE observed “no identified areas of systemic non-compliance under the IDEA Part B program” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016) for Sophie B. Wright, Lake Area New Technology High School or Joseph A. Craig. However, the LDOE, despite only reviewing Sections 504 accommodations plans, found that the LEAs “procedures used to identify, locate, and evaluate students for special education and related services lack comprehensive and rigorous decision-making.” Also, strong concerns were expressed regarding their efforts to involve
24

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 25 of 102
parents in the process. Therefore, each LEA was required to develop a Recommendation Plan for the 2016-2017 school year to address areas of noncompliance identified for individual students and related Child Find activities under IDEA. The LDOE referred to these school-based plans as Recommendation Plans because the student sample only consisted of Section 504 students and did not include students who were being considered for eligibility or services under IDEA.
The Recommendation Plans for Sophie B. Wright, Lake Area New Technology High School, and Joseph A. Craig were submitted by the LDOE to the IMs on July 11 and 12, 2016. In addition, LDOE monitoring personnel submitted correspondence via email to the IMs on July 12, 2016 that they provided technical assistance (TA) to each LEA during June 2016 to assist them with Recommendation Plan development. This TA consisted of a telephone conference call with the Special Education Director at each school to review the findings of the LDOE Monitoring Reports, IDEA Summary Reports, and inclusion of appropriate activities in the Recommendation Plans to effectively address areas of concern and appropriate scheduling and planning to ensure all areas of concern were addressed in a timely manner throughout the school year. The discussion also reportedly addressed the provision of appropriate training early during the school year on relevant policies and procedures. Special education personnel were also encouraged to seek assistance from LDOE monitoring personnel throughout the school year to address any questions or concerns related to special education programming. After reviewing the Recommendation Plans proposed by the LDOE, the IMs discussed their concerns with the Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring and recommended additional solutions to address the concerns noted by the IMs across the three (3) LEAs selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find. The IMs
25

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 26 of 102
and LDOE monitoring personnel collaborated during the month of July 2016 to add additional professional development and implementation activities to the Recommendation Plans in order to address concerns observed during the monitoring process to ensure that each of the plans addressed appropriate identification and service provisions under IDEA, Section 504 and the Response to Intervention (RTI) process. Each Recommendation Plan includes the following components: (1) Activities and Action Steps to Address Concerns Identified in the LDOE Monitoring Report, (2) Date Activity Begins, (3) Person(s) Responsible, (4) Documentation to Be Submitted to Statewide Monitoring, (5) Documentation Due Date and (6) Documentation Status. Overall, the Recommendation Plans include specific activities designed to address the provision of professional development, consistent implementation of policies and procedures related to Child Find, and actions designed to address concerns related to student specific findings. A copy of the Recommendation Plan for each LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. Based on a review of the Recommendation Plans for the charter schools, the IMs have concluded that the plans are sufficient to remedy identified areas of noncompliance as required by this section of the CJ.
Recommendations For targeted monitoring during the 2016-17 school year, the LDOE shall identify the new identification rate for each LEA following the requirements established on p. 7 of CJ and p. 1 of the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to evaluate the proper calculation of the new students who are eligible for IDEA services rate and select LEAs for targeted monitoring by reviewing the excel worksheet and related information submitted by the LDOE following timelines established in the CJ. As reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 3016, the
26

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 27 of 102
LDOE has agreed to ensure that the identified LEAs submit the proper student files in accordance with Section IV(A)(3)(b) of the CJ and Sections (A)(2)(a) – (5)(a) of the Addendum to the CJ during the 2016-2017 school year and all subsequent years for the duration of the CJ. In relation, IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ. All school staff interviews and student file reviews shall be conducted on-site at each LEA by the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs during the fall 2016 school term and spring 2017 school term using the approved CJ protocol. The on-site visits for the fall 2016 term are scheduled to occur from November 9-10, 2016 and November 14-17, 2016. In addition, the LDOE shall continue to review the documentation submitted by LEAs selected for targeted monitoring during the 2015-2016 school year at designated timelines outlined in the Recommendation Plans. In relation, the LDOE and IMs shall perform on-site monitoring visits during late January or early February 2017 to evaluate the status of policies and practices to ensure that each LEA is engaging in “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 7 of CJ). In cases where individual or systemic noncompliance is observed, the LDOE shall require individual Corrective Action Plans to address student specific areas of noncompliance and school-based Corrective Action Plans to address areas of systemic noncompliance in all future monitoring reviews in order to meet the requirements established by this CJ.
4. The State Defendants shall annually disseminate written guidance to New Orleans LEAs explaining the Child Find responsibilities of Louisiana LEAs. The guidance shall be consistent with the schedule identified in Paragraph IV.A.1 (p. 8 of CJ).
27

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 28 of 102
a. The guidance shall also explain that when a parent requests an evaluation for special education, the LEA must: (1) conduct an initial evaluation of the child; or (2) provide written reason(s) why a disability is not suspected. This guidance shall reference the general sixty (60) business day timelines for an initial evaluation in Louisiana Bulletin 1706, §302(C) and Louisiana Bulletin 1508. If the LEA does not suspect a disability, this guidance shall explain that the LEA must provide the parent written reasons for its decision within thirty (30) business days of the parent request for evaluation (p. 8 of CJ). b. The written guidance shall explain that an evaluation cannot be delayed because of the student’s current or potential participation in a Response to Intervention (RTI) program (p. 8 of CJ). c. The guidance shall further explain that a Section 504 Plan is not a substitute for a child who is in need of an evaluation under the IDEA (p. 8 of CJ). d. The guidance shall be provided to the chief executive of each LEA in New Orleans annually by August 1 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 8 of CJ). e. The State Defendants shall provide the guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by May 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twentyone (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 8 of CJ).
Current Findings 28

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 29 of 102
As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(4) for the 2015-2016 school year based upon attestation of receipt of the 2015-2016 version of PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance document.
Recommendations provided by the Plaintiff’s counsel to the PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance document regarding specific considerations under the General Requirements for Special Education Evaluations (e.g., “LEAs may not refuse a comprehensive evaluation for a student suspected of having a disability under the IDEA and instead offer that student a 504 Plan or Individualized Accommodation Plan (IAP) under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. If the LEA suspects the student has a disability which adversely affects the student’s educational performance, then a comprehensive evaluation is required to confirm or rule out IDEA eligibility. If the evaluation does not result in the student’s eligibility under the IDEA, then an LEA may evaluate the student for accommodations under Section 504.”). These recommendations have been accepted by the LDOE and OPSB for the 2016-2017 school year. As of August 9, 2016, the revised document, including the language from the Plaintiff’s counsel, has been disseminated and all LEAs, and IMs have received signed attestations that they will adhere to the guidelines contained within the revised document. In relation, attestations from OPSB were received on August 26, 2016 for each LEA under OPSB jurisdiction.
Status of Compliance
29

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 30 of 102 As of August 31, 2016, the 2016-2017 school year version of the PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance document has been disseminated to all RSD and OPSB LEAs, and they have submitted signed attestations that they will adhere to the guidelines contained within. It is the opinion of the IMs that the LDOE and OPSB are in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. Recommendations The LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit the revised PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance document by August 1 for the 2017-2018 school year and each subsequent school year under the CJ. The IMs will continue to verify the LEAs have signed attestations indicating the obligation to adhere to the guidelines scheduled for renewal during each school year.
30

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 31 of 102

SECTION IV(B) RELATED SERVICES (pp. 8-9 of the CJ)

1.

The State Defendants shall require that the charter application and renewal processes

for Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools in New Orleans require each organization seeking

issuance or renewal of a charter to provide a description of:

a. the organization’s plans for offering the full array of related services to students with qualifying disabilities who are or may come to be enrolled at the charter school, including without limitation the following categories of related services: physical therapy, occupational therapy, counseling services, orientation and mobility services, speech-language pathology, audiology services, school health/nurse services, special transportation, and adaptive physical education; and

b. the charter school staff and/or outside contractors who will provide such services (p. 8 of CJ).

Current Findings As mentioned in the previous IM status report dated June 3, 2016, a review of Section D of the Special Education Program Description Template by the IMs during the spring 2016 school term revealed that the document satisfied the requirements listed in Sections IV.B(1)(a) and IV.B(1)(b) of the Consent Judgment listed above. In relation, the Plaintiff’s counsel reported in a letter to the LDOE dated February 1, 2016 that they had no additional concerns with the template document as related to these two sections of the Agreement. In addition, a review of all completed templates by the IMs revealed that 59 of 59 (100%) charter schools completed the related service components of Section D of the 2015-2016 school year version of the Special Education Program Description Template as directed in the accompanying LDOE overview and
31

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 32 of 102
instructions document and as required by Sections IV(B)(1)(a) and IV(B)(1)(b) of the CJ. The IMs also evaluated the accuracy of the information contained within Section D of the template and provided specific feedback for each LEA to the LDOE on June 2, 2016 for dissemination to the charter schools during the summer 2016 term. The LDOE submitted revised templates to the IMs for review on July 5, 2016 and the IMs submitted additional written recommendations for each LEA to the LDOE on July 8, 2016. The LEAs were instructed by the LDOE to make any final revisions based on IM feedback to the template and to place the 2016-2017 school year version of the template on their school website. The LDOE provided the IMs with an excel worksheet on August 4, 2016 which contained the website links to the Special Education Program Description template for each LEA under the jurisdiction of the Recovery School District New Orleans Charter Schools (55 LEAs) and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (5 LEAs) for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs verified that the final versions of the Special Education Program Description template for each LEA were placed on each school website on August 10, 2016. In relation, the IMs confirmed that links to each LEA template were located online at the LDOE website and that LDOE link was located online at the enrollnola website.
Dr. Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, provided a revised copy of the OPSB Special Education Program Description template on June 30, 2016 and the Type 3b Charter School Association, Friends of King, on July 13, 2016. A review of these documents by the IMs revealed that the related service components of Section D of the 2016-2017 school year versions of the Special Education Program Description templates were completed as required by Sections IV(B)(1)(a) and IV(B)(1)(b) of the CJ. The IMs verified that the 2016-2017 school year version of the
32

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 33 of 102
Special Education Program Description templates for both OPSB and the Friends of King School District were located online on the OPSB district website on August 10, 2016. In relation, the OPSB Executive Director of Exceptional Children’s Services, reported in a letter to the IMs dated August 8, 2016 that school principals or school leaders from each school have been provided the link and have attested to adding the link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description template to their school websites. As of October 14, 2016, four (4) schools under OPSB jurisdiction still need to establish a link to the current OPSB Special Education Program Description. These schools include McDonogh #35 Middle School, McDonogh #35 High School, Eleanor McMain, and Robert Moton.
Status of Compliance The LDOE and OPSB were judged by the IMs to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported in the IM status report dated June 3, 2016. Based on the submission of Special Education Program Description templates to the IMs during the summer 2016 term and placement of the templates on the required websites, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. However, as noted previously, a review by the IMs on August 31, 2016; October 7, 2016, and October 14, 2016 revealed that a majority (i.e., 24 of 28) of the LEAs have successfully established the required link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description for the 2016-2017 school year. As noted previously, only four LEAs (i.e., Eleanor McMain Charter School, McDonogh #35 Middle School, McDonogh #35 High School, and Robert R. Moton Charter) are currently in noncompliance with this dissemination requirement of the CJ. However, given the vast majority of OPSB LEAs have complied with this dissemination
33

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 34 of 102

provision of the CJ, a compliance determination in this regard will be reserved until the end of the fall 2016-2017 school year and reported in the IMs bi-annual status report. As such, to achieve a “substantial compliance” for this required CJ dissemination activity for the 2016-2017 school year, all LEAs under OPSB’s jurisdiction shall have the link established to the OPSB Special Education Program Description by December 15, 2016.

Recommendations The LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit a Special Education Program Description template by August 1 each school year for the duration of the CJ. The IMs will continue to review all completed Special Education Program Description templates for existing charter schools, new charter schools, or charter schools scheduled for renewal during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years prior to the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE at the intervals designated above to ensure that the templates meet compliance with this section of the CJ. The IMs will continue to ensure that the templates are placed online at required websites each year.

2.

The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New

Orleans provides related services to students eligible for such services under the IDEA

(“service provision rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for

targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file

reviews of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities at the selected LEAs.

LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be

conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’

targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall

34

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 35 of 102

require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 9 of CJ).

a.

The service provision rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of minutes of

related services per week identified in the IEPs of each student with a disability in an LEA on

October 1 by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1 (p.

9 of CJ).

b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 9 of CJ).

Overview of Status of Compliance for Monitoring Activities for the 2015-2016 School Year
The IMs review of compliance with this section of the CJ consisted of evaluation of the three components of the LDOE’s monitoring activities. Specifically, the components being assessed for compliance included: (1) Identification of the charter schools selected for monitoring (e.g., determination of the annual new identification rate for each LEA and evaluation of the LDOE calculations); (2) Completion of targeted monitoring activities by the LDOE as established by the CJ and Addendum to the CJ (e.g., completion of appropriate monitoring activities by the

35

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 36 of 102
LDOE, appropriate selection of student files, appropriate completion of the monitoring protocols, and correct identification of systemic compliance and/or noncompliance) and (3) Development of appropriate corrective actions “sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur.” (p. 9 of CJ). As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(2)(a) of the CJ and Section B(1)(a-c) of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the documents submitted by LDOE and verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs. As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the targeting monitoring sections of the CJ and Addendum of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Specifically, the LDOE completed the staff interviews and student file reviews using the Related Services protocol during the spring 2016 term as designated in Section IV(B)(2)(b) of the CJ and Sections B(3)(a), B(4)(a), B(4)(b), B(5)(a) on pages 3-4 of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. After reviewing the LDOE monitoring reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, CAPs or Recommendation Plan for Algiers Technology High School, International High School of New Orleans and Landry Walker High School, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(2)(b) of the CJ and Sections B(3)(a), B(4)(a), B(4)(b), B(5)(a) on pages 3-4 of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on the activities performed to date.
Current Findings – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Actions for the 20152016 School Year Identification of Schools for Targeted Monitoring
36

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 37 of 102
The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements of the related requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The targeted monitoring notification email for each LEA is located in Appendix B for review. The LDOE also conducted planning calls with each identified charter during January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format, and desk file review process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on April 26, 2016 that included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools along with three additional columns populating the Related Service Minutes per Week, October 2014 IDEA Student Count, and Related Service Minutes Per Week Per Student using the formula specified on page 3 in Addendum A of the CJ. A review of the database and related materials from the LDOE by the IMs revealed that three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring as required in this section of the CJ. The three schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 semester in the area of Related Services included Algiers Technology Academy, International High School of New Orleans, and Landry- Walker High School.
School Staff Interviews As mentioned in the previous IM report dated June 3, 2016, each LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services (e.g., Algiers Technology Academy, International
37

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 38 of 102
High School of New Orleans, Landry-Walker High School) during the spring 2016 school term was required to participate in a school staff conference call and submit materials for a desk review. The required pre-monitoring staff conference all was conducted with each LEA during the weeks of February 15-19, 2016 or February 22-26, 2016 to obtain information form the school staff at each LEA regarding the practices and procedures related to the area of Related Services. A standard bank of interview questions taken directly from the Addendum of the CJ was utilized by LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., Director of State-wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) to probe responses in the identified areas of interest and responses were encouraged from all staff members in the conference call. A review of participants revealed that the special education administrator, general education teacher, special education teacher, exceptional student services coordinator, exceptional support specialist, speech therapist supervisor, speech pathologist assistant, social work supervisor, social worker, health services administrator and an adapted physical education teacher participated in the staff interview process for Algiers Technology Academy. A review of participants revealed that a school administrator, special education administrator, general education teacher, special education teacher, and director of curriculum and instruction participated in the staff interview process for International High School of New Orleans. A review of participants revealed that the special education administrator, special education teacher, general education teacher, exceptional student support coordinator, exceptional student support specialist, speech pathologist coordinator, speech therapist, social worker supervisor, social worker, and health services administrator participated in the interview process for Landry- Walker High School. Specific information regarding the participants involved in the interview process and outcomes of staff interviews is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The LDOE concluded that the “[r]esults of this interview process revealed no findings
38

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 39 of 102
of non- compliance with regard to polices, practices, and procedures in the area of Related Services” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016) for Algiers Technology Academy, International High School and Landry-Walker High School. The LDOE also concluded that “the responses provided by the school staff satisfactorily addressed all interview questions” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016) across all three LEAs selected for targeted monitoring during the 2015-2016 school year. Additional information may be obtained from the LDOE Monitoring Reports attached for each LEA in Appendix B.
Student Desk File Reviews For the desk file reviews, a protocol, developed from the Addendum of the CJ, was used by LDOE monitoring personnel to analyze and rate each student file from March 22, 2016 through May 5, 2016. Specifically, the Related Services protocol included nine (9) items taken directly from the Addendum of the CJ which were rated as “Yes”, “No”, or “N/A”. In relation, a LDOE monitoring team member (e.g., Director of State-wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) was assigned to lead the special education monitoring activities which included a review of student files and other relevant documentation. Prior to the desk file review, each school was provided with a rubric explaining what LDOE required from the school in order to evaluate compliance during the desk audit (e.g., LDOE Related Services Documentation Checklist located in Appendix A). A total ten (10) student files were reviewed for each LEA selected for targeted monitoring. Ten students who met the CJ selection criteria were receiving related services at International High School and LandryWalker High School. Five of ten students who met the CJ selection criteria were receiving related services at Algiers High School, and related services were being initiated for one of the
39

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 40 of 102
remaining five students based on a review of student needs. The results of the LDOE desk file review for each LEA are located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The IMs conduced independent desk reviews of the student files submitted by the LDOE using the Related Services Protocol for each targeted LEA and compared their evaluation of the files with the LDOE monitors’ assessments. The results of the desk file reviews are presented below.
Based on a review of the June 8, 2016 LDOE monitoring report, the desk file review revealed no areas of systemic non-compliance for Algiers Technology Academy with regard to the provision of Related Services. However, results of desk file reviews revealed that although goals were included in the student IEPs, the LDOE monitoring personnel determined that IEP goals for two (2) of ten (10) students were not written in a measurable format (e.g., contain conditions or “givens” under which the student must perform specific academic tasks or social behaviors, identify the learner who is to perform the task or behavior, identify the specific tasks or defined behavior(s) to be performed, identify the method(s) of measurement for the task or behavior, identify the expected performance criterion, identify the timeframe for mastery of the goal or instructional objective). In contrast, the IMs determined that IEP goals for seven (7) of ten (10) students were not written in a measurable format. A discussion with the LDOE staff revealed that monitoring personnel scored Item 5 on the Related Services protocol (e.g., “The IEP includes measurable, standards-based annual goals, including academic and functional goals. Benchmarks or short-term objectives should be included for students who take alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement standards.”) as a “Yes” if a majority of the goals on the IEP were observed to be measurable. However, the IMs scored Item 5 as a “Yes” if all goals on
40

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 41 of 102
the IEP were observed to be measurable. The desk file review revealed systemic areas of noncompliance with regard to §300.17(a.-d.) Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and §300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B)- Definition of Individualized Education Program (pp. 1-4 of the IDEA Monitoring Results Summary) for International High School. Specifically, the LDOE monitoring personnel reported “that some student goals, including academic and functional goals, were not measurable or designed to meet the student’s needs” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). In relation, the LDOE monitoring personnel observed that IEP goals were not written in a measurable format on IEPs for five (5) of ten (10) students and the IMs observed that IEP goals were not written in a measurable format on IEPs for seven (7) of ten (10) students. In addition, the LDOE monitoring team reported that “for some of the IEPs reviewed, there was no evidence that the Officially Designated Representative (ODR) participated in the IEP team meeting” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). Specifically, the ODR was not observed to be present for IEP meetings for three of ten students (30% of the sample). Finally, the LDOE monitoring team reported that “there was no evidence to show that related services were provided to the student in the frequency and duration noted on the IEP” for one student (10% of the sample) on page 2 of the IDEA Monitoring Results Summary for International High School. The IMs concurred with the LDOE findings regarding ODR presence and provision of related services by related service personnel for these students. The desk file review revealed systemic areas of non-compliance with regard to §300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B)- Definition of Individualized Education Program (pp. 1-4 of the IDEA Monitoring Results Summary) for Landry-Walker High School. Specifically, the LDOE monitoring personnel
41

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 42 of 102
reported “that some student goals, including academic and functional goals, were not measurable or designed to meet the student’s needs” (pp. 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). In relation, the LDOE monitoring personnel observed that IEP goals were not written in a measurable format on IEPs for four (4) of ten (10) students and the IMs observed that IEP goals were not written in a measurable format on IEPs for nine (9) of ten (10) students. The IMs and LDOE monitoring personnel discussed potential reasons for the scoring differences with regard to the evaluation of IEP goals during the summer 2016 and early fall 2016 terms. In relation, the IMs and LDOE personnel reviewed the plans for on-site school visits and selection criteria and scoring of protocols again during on-site meetings and/or phone conferences during the fall 2016 term in order to ensure that students are selected based on requirements established by within the CJ and to ensure that all individuals completing protocol reviews score items in a consistent manner. Finally, all parties met on September 22, 2016 to review school selection criteria, student selection criteria and to discuss protocol scoring procedures.
Corrective Actions to Address Noncompliance The LDOE monitoring personnel concluded that “after a comprehensive review of the special education programming and compliance requirements at Algiers Technology Academy there were no identified areas of systemic non-compliance under the IDEA, Part B program” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). The LDOE recommended that the staff at Algiers Technology Academy “immediately begin correcting the finding(s)” documented in the Monitoring Report Summary and develop a Recommendation Plan to address areas of concern related to development of measurable goals on student IEPs. The LDOE concluded that “after a
42

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 43 of 102
comprehensive review of the special education programming and compliance requirements at the International High School of New Orleans, there were identified areas of non-compliance under the IDEA, Part B program” (p. 4 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016). Specific areas of systemic noncompliance were observed with regard to specific IDEA regulations (e.g., §300.17(a.-d.) Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and §300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B)Definition of Individualized Education Program). The LDOE also informed the International High School of New Orleans that the school personnel “must immediately begin correcting areas of non-compliance as indicated on the Results Summary Attachment” and that the LEA must submit a formal Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that addresses each finding “immediately but in no case later than thirty days” from receipt of the letter accompanying the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016. In relation, the CAP “must address the activities the school system will implement to correct all areas of identified non-compliance, as rapidly as possible, and in no case longer than one year from the date of this letter” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). Finally, the LDOE concluded that “after a comprehensive review of the special education programming and compliance requirements at Landry Walker High School, there were identified areas of non-compliance under the IDEA, Part B program” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report). Specific areas of systemic noncompliance were observed with regard to specific IDEA regulations (e.g., §300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B)- Definition of Individualized Education Program). The LDOE also informed the Landry-Walker High School that the school personnel “must immediately begin correcting areas of non-compliance as indicated on the Results Summary Attachment” and that the LEA must submit a formal Corrective Action Plan (CAP) that addresses each finding “immediately but in no case later than thirty days” from receipt of the letter accompanying the
43

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 44 of 102
LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016. In relation, the CAP “must address the activities the school system will implement to correct all areas of identified non-compliance, as rapidly as possible, and in no case longer than one year from the date of this letter” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). Overall, the Recommendation Plan for Algiers Technology Academy and CAPs for International High School and Landry- Walker High School included specific activities designed to address the provision of professional development, consistent implementation of policies and procedures related to Related Services, and actions designed to address concerns related to student specific findings. In addition, the CAP for International High School has an additional activity to ensure that appropriate school personnel attend IEP meetings. A copy of the Recommendation Plan for Algiers Technology and CAPs for International High School and Landry-Walker High School are located in Appendix B for review by the parties. In relation, LDOE rubric (i.e., IEP Evaluation Rubric) designed to assist school personnel in implementing the Recommendation Plan or CAPs is also located in Appendix B for review by the parties. Based on a review of the plans for each LEA, the IMs have concluded that the plans are sufficient to remedy identified areas of noncompliance as required by this section of the CJ.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to follow the targeted monitoring procedures as outlined in this section of the CJ and on pages 2-4 of the Addendum of the CJ. IMs will continue to review charter selection and verify LDOE calculations as required by this section of the CJ. The LDOE shall also continue to select schools for targeted monitoring and perform student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Related Services protocol as outlined on pages 8-9 of the CJ and on pages 2-4 of the Addendum of the CJ and related documents (e.g., see
44

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 45 of 102
Appendix B for a copy of the IEP Evaluation Rubric) during the fall 2016 school term for schools selected for targeted monitoring after reviewing data from the 2015-2016 school year. The IMs will evaluate the status of compliance for the 2016-2017 school year after reviewing the documents submitted by the LDOE and verifying the calculations in the excel spreadsheet during the fall 2016 term. The status of compliance for the 2016-2017 school year will be evaluated by the IMs following the completion of monitoring activities and on-site school visits during the fall 2016 term and an update will be provided in the bi-annual report due to the Court in the next IM bi-annual status report. The on-site monitoring visits for the fall 2016 term are scheduled for November 9-10, 2016 and November 14-17, 2016. The LDOE shall also continue to review the CAPs or Recommendation Plan for the LEAs selected for targeted monitoring during the 2015-2016 school year at designated timelines outlined on these documents. In relation, the LDOE and IMs shall perform on-site monitoring visits during late January or early February 2017 to evaluate the status of policies and practices to ensure that each LEA is engaging in “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 9 of CJ). The LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs will also review another sample of student IEPs using the Related Service protocol from the CJ Addendum and IEP Evaluation Rubric to evaluate the quality of IEP goals during follow-up, on-site visits in the spring 2017 school term. In relation, IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ. In cases where individual or systemic noncompliance is observed, the LDOE shall require individual Corrective Action Plans to address student specific areas of noncompliance and school-based Corrective Action Plans to address areas of systemic noncompliance in all future monitoring reviews in order to meet the requirements established
45

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 46 of 102
by this CJ.
SECTION IV(C) DISCIPLINE (pp. 9-11 of the CJ) 1. The State Defendants shall, within 60 days of the implementation of this Agreement, review the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans for compliance with the IDEA. The State Defendants shall require that the codes of conduct and/or discipline policies for each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans contain, at a minimum: (a) a written description of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, which should be written in plain language that parents/guardians, students, and the general public can understand; and (b) a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252 (p. 9 of CJ).
a. For the duration of this Agreement, the State Defendants shall, on the anniversary of the initial reviews described above:
i. require each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to submit a written assurance that the code of conduct and/or discipline policy for the school has not changed since the State Defendants last reviewed the code or policy; or,
ii. review, for compliance with the IDEA, the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans that is unable to provide such an assurance (p. 9 of CJ).
Current Findings
46

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 47 of 102
As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, IMs examination of the Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities document revealed the policy did not include language to address the LEAs plan for supporting behavior and discipline pursuant to Section IV (C) (1b). Therefore, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance for the 2015-2016 school year. Since the June, 3 2016 report submission, IMs submitted Code of Conduct reviews for the remaining 21 LEAs (6 schools from Algiers Charter School Association, 3 schools from Crescent City Schools, 9 schools from KIPP: New Orleans, and 3 Non-Network Charters including Mary Coghill Accelerated, The NET Charter, and Sophie B. Wright) that chose not to adopt the LDOE model discipline policy (e.g., Discipline Policy & Procedures for Students with Disabilities) to the LDOE on June 29, 2016. The IMs used the 19- item rubric entitled, Procedural Safeguards Checklist: Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities, to complete the Code of Conduct reviews. LEAs from Algiers Charter School Association, Crescent City Schools and The NET were observed to have all required elements measured by the 19-item rubric in their respective Codes of Conduct with the exception of item 19 addressing all of the requirements of positive behavior supports in La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251252. Significant concerns were observed in the Codes of Conduct for KIPP: New Orleans, Mary Coghill Accelerated, and Sophie B. Wright with the omission of language to address most of the items included in the 19-item rubric. In these cases, the IMs recommended provided specific recommendations to each LEA to assist the school personnel in effectively addressing the identified deficiencies. In most cases, the LEAs were encouraged to adopt language directly from the model discipline policy from the LDOE entitled, Discipline Policy & Procedures for Students with Disabilities. Even in cases where items were scored compliant
47

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 48 of 102
for the other LEAs, the IMs recommended that the LEA adopt language from the model discipline document to assist school personnel in fully understating the intent of each element in the model discipline policy. In relation to the LEAs with observed concerns (e.g., KIPP: New Orleans, Mary Coghill, Sophie B. Wright), the LDOE reported in a correspondence directly to the IMs on August 12, 2016 that the identified LEAs were making the revisions to the Codes of Conduct for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs conducted a review of the publicly available Student Handbooks, which contained each of the discipline policies for students with disabilities for KIPP: New Orleans Charters and Sophie B. Wright on October 13, 2016. Using the 19-item rubric entitled, Procedural Safeguards Checklist: Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities, KIPP: New Orleans Charters and Sophie B. Wright were observed to have all required discipline components in their respective Student Handbooks. Mary Coghill Charter School has been transferred to OPSB jurisdiction for the 2016-2017 school year and will be addressed accordingly.
In relation to requirements in Section IV(C)(1b), the IMs previously reported that they did not observe clear evidence of each LEAs plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252 in the IM Status Report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016. The LDOE stated during a phone conference held with the IMs on May 25, 2016 that they would have each charter submit language regarding their PBIS policies and procedures and/or a signed attestation that they will follow the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252 for the coming school year. All LEAs were required to submit attestations and model documents demonstrating that their discipline policies reflect the requirements supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of
48

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 49 of 102
La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252 for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs received the signed attestations for each LEA from the LDOE on July 21, 2016 and LDOE model documents addressing positive behavior supports, safe school planning, parental and community involvement, and interagency coordination for students in need of external support on September 27, 2016. In relation, all LEAs submitted signed attestations in August 2016 indicating that their Codes of Conduct meet the discipline requirements under this section of the CJ for the 2016- 2017 school year (i.e., the Code of Conduct continues to include the model LDOE discipline policy or includes language to meet the requirements on the 19-item discipline rubric). The IMs have reviewed and verified the signed attestations and LDOE model documents for the 2016- 2017 school year.
Status of Compliance Based on the submission of the required documentation related to discipline regulations and safeguards for students with disabilities, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
Recommendations There is no specific mandate outlined in the CJ requiring NOLA Charter LEAs to incorporate their adopted model policy for complying with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252 in their Student Code of Conduct. However, for the purpose of making these policies easily accessible to parents, the IMs strongly recommend that each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter School incorporate this discipline policy for providing positive behavioral supports in their Student Code of Conduct as well as make this model policy publicly available on their respective websites.
49

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 50 of 102
Secondly, all Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs should continue to submit written assurances that the student Code of Conduct has not been modified and/or provide the IMs with a detailed account of any revisions to the student Code of Conduct to the LDOE annually for the duration of the CJ. The LDOE should submit this information to the IMs by August 1st annually. The IMs will continue to review documentation related to this section of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year and subsequent school years under the CJ.
2. The Defendant-Intervenor shall, within 60 days of the implementation of this Agreement, review the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each school under its jurisdiction for compliance with the IDEA. The Defendant-Intervenor shall require that the codes of conduct and/or discipline policies for each school under its jurisdiction contain, at a minimum: (a) a written description of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, which should be written in plain language that parents/guardians, students, and the general public can understand; and (b) a plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251-252 (p. 10 of CJ). a. For the duration of this Agreement, the Defendant-Intervenor shall, on the anniversary of the initial reviews described above:
i. require each school under its jurisdiction to submit a written assurance that the code of conduct and/or discipline policy for the school has not changed since the Defendant-Intervenor last reviewed the code or policy; or,
ii. review, for compliance with the IDEA, the code of conduct and/or discipline policy of each school under its jurisdiction that is unable to provide such an assurance (p. 50

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 51 of 102
10 of CJ).
Current Findings As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, Compliance for Section IV (C) (2) of the CJ could not be evaluated until each charter LEA provided written descriptions of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, and their plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251- 252 (p. 10 of CJ). Therefore, OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV (C) (2) for the 20152016 school year.
Status of Compliance
During a meeting of all parties on February 28, 2016, Dr. Wayne Stewart, counsel for OPSB, noted all schools in the district will adopt the Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities for the 2016-17 school year. In relation, OPSB officials provided the IMs with electronic copies of signed attestations from all principals across all OPSB LEAs regarding adoption of the LDOE Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities for the 2016- 17 school year. Further, compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251252 was provided to the IMs in the form of an electronic copy of the current OPSB Student Assistant Team (SAT) Handbook. Therefore, based on the IMs receipt of signed attestations from 100% of LEA school principals under OPSB’s jurisdiction and the submission of the SAT Handbook, the OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(2)(a)(i-ii) for the 2016- 2017 school year.
51

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 52 of 102
Recommendations
As mentioned previously, there is no specific mandate outlined in the CJ requiring OPSB LEAs to incorporate the OPSB’s parish-wide discipline policy for complying with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat §17:251-252 in their Student Code of Conduct. However, for the purpose of making this parish-wide discipline policy description easily accessible to parents, the IMs strongly recommend that each LEA under OPSB’s jurisdiction incorporate this parish-wide discipline policy for providing positive behavioral supports in their respective Student Code of Conduct. In addition, it is also recommended this parish-wide discipline policy be made available on the OPSB website as well as on each OPSB LEA website.
Secondly, LEAs should continue to submit written assurances the student Code of Conduct has not been modified and/or submit a detailed account of any revisions to the student Code of Conduct to the LDOE annually. The OPSB should submit this information to the IMs by August 1 annually for the duration of the CJ. The IMs will continue to review documentation related to this section of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year and subsequent school years under the CJ.
3. The State Defendants shall provide annual technical assistance to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions and shall develop and broadly disseminate information to parents of students at each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans about the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions. Additionally, the State Defendants shall provide annual professional development to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans on disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities and on best practices to reduce
52

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 53 of 102
suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities (p. 10 of CJ). a. The State Defendants shall provide the required technical assistance and professional development to each Type 2 or Type 5 charter school in New Orleans annually by October 31 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 10 of CJ). b. The State Defendants shall provide information detailing the methods and materials to be used to provide the required technical assistance and professional development to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by June 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the materials to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 10 of CJ).
Current Findings - Technical Assistance As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Technical Assistance provisions of Section IV (C) (3) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year based on a review of related technical assistance material including the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance template, the Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools template, and verification documents provided by each LEA. It should be noted that the CJ requires broad dissemination of the aforementioned documents each school year. The LDOE provided the IMs with electronic documentation of signed attestations of dissemination of the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance and Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools templates from the school principal or school leader for all (100%) of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charters.
53

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 54 of 102
Current Findings - Annual Professional Development As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with regard to the annual professional development provisions of Section IV (C) (3) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year, given a number of concerns in relation to the presentation “Discipline of Students with Disabilities,” and agreement for additional professional development training to be developed by the IMs in coordination with all parties held by all parties on February 28, 2016. The IMs provided halfday professional development workshops entitled “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” to RSD charter schools on September 28-29, 2016. The content of this professional development was approved by all parties prior to delivery of the content to the school personnel.
Status of Compliance Based on the evidence submitted to the IMs verifying signed attestations from all school principals or school leaders of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter Schools for the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance and Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools and verification that representatives from each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA attended a half-day professional development workshop entitled “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” on September 28-29, 2016, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with these implementation activities required in Section IV(C)(3)(a-b) of the CJ for the 20152016 school year.
Recommendations NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs shall continue to disseminate the PB v White –
54

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 55 of 102
Undocumented Suspension Guidance and Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools annually and submit signed attestations of the review and dissemination of this document to the LDOE by August 1 annually for the duration of the CJ. LEAs shall also continue to complete all annual professional development activities as required in CJ. The IMs will continue to verify these required attestations and annual professional development activities annually as required in Section IV (C) (3) of the CJ for the duration of the agreement.
4. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide annual technical assistance to each school under its jurisdiction regarding the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions and shall develop and broadly disseminate information to parents of students at each school under its jurisdiction about the prohibited practice of undocumented suspensions. Additionally, the Defendant- Intervenor shall provide annual professional development to each school under its jurisdiction on disciplinary procedures for students with disabilities and on best practices to reduce suspensions and expulsions for students with disabilities (pp. 10-11 of CJ). a. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide the required technical assistance and professional development to each school under its jurisdiction annually by October 31 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 11 of CJ). b. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide information detailing the methods and materials to be used to provide the required technical assistance and professional development to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by June 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the materials to the Parties within twenty-one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any
55

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 56 of 102
changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 11 of CJ).
Current Findings - Technical Assistance As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance with the Technical Assistance provisions of Section IV (C) (4) for the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of submitted documentation. For the 2016-17 school year, OPSB has attested the LEAs have disseminated the document entitled, Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools through a variety of methods. Attestation of dissemination of document entitled, PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance was received by August 31, 2016 from each OPSB LEA. Further, the Executive Director reported in a letter to the IMs, dated August 8, 2016, that OPSB personnel “have provided on-site support to schools through a Compliance Specialist and two Program Coordinators." These additional support staff have been made available to LEAs under the OPSB’s jurisdiction to provide technical assistance and consultation to address discipline– related concerns of both students with documented and/or suspected disabilities.
Current Findings - Annual Professional Development As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the professional development provisions of Section IV (C) (4) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year based on a review of the workshop conducted on “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” and verification that representatives from 100% of OPSB LEAs attended the training. OPSB reported that the Annual Professional Development was conducted September 12, 2016.
56

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 57 of 102
Status of Compliance OPSB school leaders have provided evidence of signed attestations to the dissemination of the Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools document for the 2016-2017 school year. In relation, documentation of signed attestations for the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance have been received by the IMs for each school principal or school leader for 100% of OPSB LEAs for the 2016-2017 school year. Additionally, the IMs have received documentation from OPSB counsel verifying that representatives from all (100%) of OPSB LEAs attended a professional development session on September 12, 2016, using content approved during, and carried over from, the 2015-2016 school year. Based on these findings, the OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the implementation activities required in Section IV(C)(3)(a-b) of the CJ.
Recommendations The OPSB shall continue to disseminate the documents entitled, PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance and Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter School as planned and provide attestations of the same to the LDOE by August 1 annually. Additionally, the OPSB should continue to provide the required professional development annually as required by the CJ and submit evidence of the provision of this training by August 1st annually for the duration of the CJ. The IMs shall continue to verify attestations and provision of professional development activities annually for the duration of the CJ.
5. The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which each LEA in New Orleans removes students with disabilities for disciplinary purposes for more than ten (10) cumulative days in an academic year (“extended disciplinary removal rate”). Using this rate,
57

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 58 of 102
the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring. As part of targeted monitoring, the State Defendants shall conduct file reviews of a random, representative sample of students with disabilities who received six (6) or more Office Discipline Referrals or three (3) or more suspensions (in- or out-of-school) in a school year. LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be conducted consistent with the processes detailed in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’ targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 11 of CJ).
a. The extended disciplinary removal rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of students with disabilities who experienced disciplinary removals for more than ten (10) cumulative days between July 1 and June 30 by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1 (p. 11 of CJ).
b. The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 11 of CJ).
58

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 59 of 102
Overview of Status of Compliance for Monitoring Activities for the 2015-2016 School Year The IMs review of compliance with this section of the CJ consisted of evaluation of the three components of the LDOE’s monitoring activities. Specifically, the components being assessed for compliance included: (1) Identification of the charter schools selected for monitoring (e.g., determination of the annual new identification rate for each LEA and evaluation of the LDOE calculations); (2) Completion of targeted monitoring activities by the LDOE as established by the CJ and Addendum to the CJ (e.g., completion of appropriate monitoring activities by the LDOE, appropriate selection of student files, appropriate completion of the monitoring protocols, and correct identification of systemic compliance and/or noncompliance) and (3) Development of appropriate corrective actions “sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur.” (p. 11 of CJ).
As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (C) (5a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as a result of properly calculating the extended disciplinary removal rate as required by the CJ. However, as previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV(C)(5b) of the CJ and Sections C(1)(c) and C (2) (a) of the CJ Addendum for the 2015-2016 based on a review of targeted monitoring documents submitted by each identified charter school, and completion of the student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Discipline protocol. Specifically, the determination of noncompliance was based on the fact the selection of students in the area of discipline failed to include a full year of discipline data as outlined in Section C(2)(a) of Addendum A of the CJ. Furthermore, noncompliance was
59

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 60 of 102
judged and the result of Crescent Leadership Academy (CLA) being excluded from undergoing targeted desk reviews during the spring 2015-2016 school year. This exclusion reduced the number of LEAs monitored during the spring 2016 term to two (2) schools instead of the required three (3) schools as outlined in Section C(1)(c) of Addendum A of the CJ. However, with regard to the targeted monitoring provisions outlined in the CJ, after reviewing the LDOE monitoring reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, and CAPs for International High School of New Orleans and Cohen College Prep, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(5b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Additional information for each required component under this section of the CJ is reported below.
Current Findings – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Actions for the 2015- 2016 School Year
Identification of Schools for Targeted Monitoring The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements of the discipline requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The targeted monitoring notification email for each LEA is located in Appendix B for review. The IMs were provided a sample notification email for review. The LDOE also conducted planning calls with each
60

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 61 of 102
identified charter during January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format, and desk file review process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on April 4, 2016 that included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools along with three additional columns populating SWD Suspended/Expelled >10 Days, School IDEA Count, and % SWD Suspended/ Expelled >10 Days using the formula specified in Addendum A of the CJ. A review of the spreadsheet and related materials from the LDOE by the IMs revealed that the following three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring as required in Section (C) (1) of the CJ. These schools included Cohen College Preparatory School, Crescent Leadership Academy, and International High School of New Orleans. Although Crescent Leadership Academy (CLA) was selected for monitoring during the spring 2016 school term, the LDOE elected not to complete desk file reviews for CLA based on a recent monitoring visit conducted the previous school year on March 3, 2015. A letter from LDOE to CLA dated April 4, 2015, indicated there were no findings which required resolution.
School Staff Interviews As mentioned in the previous IM report dated June 3, 2016, each LEA selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 in the area of Discipline (e.g., Cohen College Preparatory School, Crescent Leadership Academy, International School of New Orleans) was required to participate in a school staff conference call and submit materials for a desk review. The required pre-monitoring staff conference calls were completed with Cohen College Preparatory School and International High School during the weeks of February 15-19, 2016 and February 22-26, 2016 to obtain information from school staff at each LEA regarding the practices and procedures as related to the area of Discipline. A standard bank of interview questions taken
61

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 62 of 102
directly from the Addendum of the CJ was utilized by LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., Director of State- wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) to probe responses in the identified areas of interest and responses were encouraged from all staff members in the conference call. A review of participants revealed that a school administrator, special education administrator, dean of special education, academic dean, special education teacher, and general education teacher participated in the staff interview process for Cohen College Preparatory School. A review of participants revealed that a school administrator, general education administrator, special education administrator, general education teacher, and special education teacher participated in the staff interview process for Crescent Leadership Academy. A review of participant revealed that a school administrator, director of curriculum and instruction, special education administrator, general education teacher, and special education teacher participated in the staff interview process for International High School of New Orleans. Specific information regarding the participants involved in the interview process and outcomes of the staff interviews is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The LDOE concluded that the “[re]sults of this interview process revealed concerns with regard to the monitoring of Behavior Intervention Plans (BIPs) for individual students” for Cohen College Preparatory School (p. 3 of the June 8, 2016 LDOE Monitoring Report). “Recommendations for improvement include ensuring BIPs for each student are monitored on a consistent basis in accordance with timelines that are appropriate for that particular student. In accordance, BIPs should be developed and revised based upon individual student behavioral needs instead of a more school-wide approach to reviewing BIP effectiveness data” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016). The LDOE concluded that “[re]sults of this interview process revealed concerns as it relates to informing parents of their procedural safeguards and providing parents a copy of those safeguards” for
62

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 63 of 102
International High School (p. 3 of the June 8, 2016 LDOE Monitoring Report). “There were also concerns noted in the school’s procedures and timelines for conducting Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDR). Recommendations for improvement with regard to practices and procedures in the area of Discipline include: establishing a notification system to ensure parents are informed about procedural safeguards, and making available and providing a written copy of the procedural safeguards when the school is considering a disciplinary change of placement for students. Also, the school should consider providing training to school staff on the MDR process to include a discussion on required timelines for conducting MDRs. It would also be beneficial for the school to develop a Behavior Checklist that includes all of the necessary steps school staff should follow for disciplinary removals to ensure proper procedures are adhered to each time a student with a disability is subject to suspensions/expulsions, particularly any removals of greater than 10 days” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016). Additional information may be obtained from the monitoring reports attached for each LEA in Appendix B.
Student Desk File Reviews For the desk reviews, a protocol, developed from the Addendum of the CJ was used by the LDOE monitoring personnel to analyze and rate each student file from March 22, 2016 to May 5, 2016. Specifically, the Discipline protocol included eight (8) items taken directly from the Discipline Monitoring Protocol in Addendum A of the CJ which were rated as “Yes”, “No”, or “N/A”. In relation, a LDOE monitoring team member (e.g., Director of State-wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) was assigned to lead the special education monitoring activities which included a review of student files and other relevant documentation. Prior to the desk file review, each school was provided with a
63

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 64 of 102
rubric explaining what the LDOE required from the school in order to evaluate compliance during the desk audit (e.g., LDOE Discipline Documentation Checklist located in Appendix A). In relation, the results of the LDOE desk file reviews for Cohen College Preparatory School and International High School of New Orleans are located in Appendix B for review by the parties. As reported in the June 3, 2016 IM status report, Crescent Leadership Academy was unilaterally cleared by the LDOE in an earlier scheduled LDOE monitoring review. The IMs conducted independent desk reviews of the student files submitted by the LDOE using the Discipline Monitoring Protocol for each targeted LEA and compared their evaluation of the files with the LDOE monitors’ assessments.
Twenty (20) total student files were selected for review from Cohen College Preparatory School and International High School of New Orleans. The reviews were conducted using the Discipline Monitoring Protocol as outlined in Addendum A to the CJ. In the June 3, 2016 report to the Court, the IMs noted that of the 20 students identified for targeted monitoring in the area of Discipline, only four (4) student files were used for the following analysis as these were the only students selected who met the criteria for requiring a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR). However, after later discussion with LDOE monitoring staff, this number was revised to only three (3) students. Although additional students in the sample met the CJ selection criteria (i.e., students with disabilities who received six (6) or more Office Discipline Referrals or three or more suspensions (e.g., in-school or out-of-school suspension) annually, none of the remaining students selected for targeted monitoring review during the spring 2016 school year received more than 10 days of suspension and/or an expulsion during the 2014-2015 academic year. As such, there is incongruence with the school selection criteria (i.e. students with 10 or more days of suspension or expulsion) and the student selection
64

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 65 of 102
criteria (i.e., experiencing six (6) or more office referrals or three (3) or more suspensions) as it relates to the MDR and procedural Due Process focus of the Discipline Protocol. That is, only the first item on the Discipline Monitoring Protocol (i.e. provision of positive behavioral supports) was found to be applicable to all student files selected, as the remaining items are specifically related to MDR activities and outcomes. It is important to note that during desk reviews of selected student files, the IMs observed varying degrees of behavioral supports were consistently provided for all twenty (20) students reviewed in the sample when scoring Item #1 of the Discipline protocol. A total of only three (3) students selected across both Cohen College Preparatory School and International High School of New Orleans met the criteria requiring a MDR. As such, the analysis of the applicable items included in the Discipline protocol will be reported and discussed only for the students meeting the MDR (i.e. change in placement) criteria.
A comparison of desk reviews conducted by the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff for International High School of New Orleans revealed consistent findings of compliance with regard to selected students receiving documented positive behavioral supports (e.g., Discipline protocol item #1). However, although observing a small sample of students, both the LDOE monitoring team and IMs consistently observed varying levels of noncompliance with regard to the LEAs failing to (a) conduct a required MDR in a timely manner for one student after a decision was made to change the student’s placement, (b) provide the student’s parent with notification of change in placement and procedural safeguards, (c) consider a wide range of information when conducting the MDR, (d) ensure that students continue to receive FAPE when the MDR determined the behavior “was not” a manifestation of the student’s disability, (e) return the students to their regular school placement after the MDR determined the behavior
65

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 66 of 102
“was related” to the student’s disability (f) provide students with an FBA/BIP after a decision was change his/her placement and (g) review and revise the student’s BIP as part of the MDR process.
A concurrent desk review conducted by the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff for Cohen College Preparatory Charter School also revealed consistent findings of compliance with regard to the students receiving documented positive behavioral supports. As mentioned previously, only one student in this sample met the criteria for requiring a MDR. Therefore, after review of this one case file, both the LDOE monitoring team and IMs observed individual noncompliance with regard to the LEAs failing to (a) conduct a required MDR in a timely manner after a decision was made to change the student’s placement, (b) provide the student’s parent with notification of change in placement and procedural safeguards, (c) consider a wide range of information when conducting the MDR, (d) ensure the student continued to receive FAPE when the MDR determined the behavior “was not” a manifestation of his or her disability, (e) return the student to the regular school placement after the MDR determined the behavior “was related” to the student’s disability and (f) provide the student with an FBA/BIP after a decision was made change his/her placement.
To ensure targeted monitoring in the area of Discipline is consistent with CJ requirements, the IMs and LDOE personnel reviewed LEA selection criteria and discussed on-site school visits during on-site meetings and/or phone conferences during July-September, 2016 term in order to ensure that students are selected based on requirements established within the CJ. Finally, all parties met on September 22, 2016 to discuss concerns related to the utility of the Discipline protocol when reviewing student cases in which a MDR is not mandated. Specifically, the
66

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 67 of 102
parties discussed concerns related to the fact that a limited number of students may qualify for a “change in placement” based on the current selection criteria (e.g., student with 6 or more Office Discipline Referrals or 3 or more in- or out-of-school suspensions in school year) in the Addendum of the CJ (p. 5). That is, when considering the current Discipline protocol is designed to measure compliance with IDEA standards related to required MDR procedures and behavioral support mandates, the fact that only a minimum number of students met the criterion for requiring a MDR (i.e. 10 or more days of exclusionary removals or expulsion), this significantly limits the IMs and LDOE monitor’s ability to accurately assess compliance with IDEA Discipline requirements across targeted LEAs. As such, in a September 22, 2016 meeting with all parties, the IMs recommended modifying the LEA selection criterion to ensure that an adequate sample of students meeting the MDR criterion was obtained. However, LDOE counsel stated a preference to continue the LEA selection criterion in the area of Discipline that was agreed upon in the CJ by the parties. As a clarification, in addition to school expulsion, the IMs emphasized that students selected for targeted monitoring who experienced exclusionary discipline removals, whether out-of-school and in-school suspensions, would be considered when determining whether a student reached the 10 day cumulative days of removal criterion requiring a mandated MDR. As such, all parties agreed to proceed with the process as outlined in the CJ for future protocol reviews with the recognition that reviews may be influenced by the small sample size of students meeting the criteria established in the CJ.
Corrective Actions to Address Noncompliance On June 8, 2016, the LDOE submitted cover letters, completed monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to
67

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 68 of 102
IDEA violations, and CAP templates to the IMs. The cover letters, LDOE Monitoring Reports, and IDEA Monitoring Summaries to address findings of noncompliance for identified students, and Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) are located in Appendix B for review by the parties. A review of the monitoring reports for Cohen College Preparatory School and International High School of New Orleans dated Jun 8, 2016, revealed that the LDOE concluded that there were “no identified areas of systemic non-compliance” in the area of Discipline for either school. However, the LDOE provided specific recommendations to each LEA for addressing identified concerns. The LDOE recommended the following activities for Cohen College Preparatory Academy: Although there was only one student who had more than a 10-day out-of-school suspension that resulted in a change of placement, it is suggested that the school develops and implements practices and procedures for discipline which are consistent with requirement of IDEA, particularly for the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) process. In keeping with IDEA disciplinary procedures, the LEA should ensure disciplinary actions are followed consistently and implemented for students with disabilities who are suspended and/or expelled to ensure students are receiving a FAPE. Additionally, the LEA should make certain parents are informed of their procedural safeguards and provided a written copy of them when recommending students for suspension and/or expulsion that result in a potential change of placement.” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). The LDOE recommend the following activities for International High School of New Orleans: “Although there was only one student who had more than 10 days of an out-ofschool suspension that resulted in a change of placement, it is suggested that the school address making changes to its disciplinary policies, practices, and procedures, especially for the Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) process. Also in keeping with IDEA
68

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 69 of 102
disciplinary procedures, the school should ensure disciplinary actions are consistently followed and implemented for students with disabilities who are suspended and/or expelled to make certain students are receiving FAPE. Additionally, the school should ensure parents are informed of procedural safeguards and given a written copy of those safeguards when recommending students for suspension and/or expulsion that result in a potential change of placement.” (p. 4 of the LDOE monitoring report dated June 8, 2016). Although the LDOE observed “no evidence of systemic noncompliance” for each LEA in the area of Discipline, the LDOE required CAPs for both LEAs targeted for monitoring in the area of Discipline. Specific information regarding the CAP for each LEA is reported in the following section.
The CAPs for and Cohen College Preparatory School and International High School of New Orleans were submitted by the LDOE to the IMs for review on July 11, 2016. In relation, LDOE monitoring personnel submitted correspondence via email to the IMs during the summer 2016 school term revealing that they provided technical assistance (TA) to each LEA during June 2016 and August 2016 to assist the school personnel with CAP development. This TA consisted of a telephone conference call with the Special Education Director at each school to review the findings of the LDOE Monitoring Reports, IDEA Summary Reports and inclusion of appropriate activities in the CAPs to effectively address areas of concern and appropriate scheduling and planning to ensure all areas of concern were addressed in a timely manner throughout the school year. The discussion also reportedly addressed the provision of appropriate training early during the school year on relevant policies and procedures. Special education personnel were also encouraged to seek assistance from LDOE monitoring personnel throughout the school year to address any questions or concerns related to special education programming. After reviewing the CAPs proposed by the LDOE, the IMs discussed their
69

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 70 of 102
concerns with the Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring and recommended additional solutions to address the concerns noted by the IMs across the three (3) LEAs selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Discipline. The IMs and LDOE monitoring personnel collaborated during the month of July 2016 to add additional professional development and implementation activities to the CAPs in order to address any concerns observed during the monitoring process. Each CAP includes the following components: (1) Activities and Action Steps to Address Concerns Identified in the LDOE Monitoring Report, (2) Date Activity Begins, (3) Person(s) Responsible, (4) Documentation to Be Submitted to Statewide Monitoring, (5) Documentation Due Date and (6) Documentation Status. Overall the CAPs include specific activities designed to address the provision of professional development, consistent implementation of policies and procedures related to Discipline, and actions designed to address concerns related to student specific findings. A copy of the CAP for each LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Discipline is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. Based on a review of the CAPs for the charter schools, the IMs have concluded that the plans are sufficient to remedy identified areas of noncompliance as required by this section of the CJ.
Recommendations For targeted monitoring during the 2016-2017 school year, the LDOE shall identify the new identification rate for each LEA following the requirements established in section IV(C)(5)(a) on page 11 of the CJ and section (C)(1) (a-b) on page 4 of the Addendum of the CJ. The IMs shall verify LDOE calculations each year and provide updates in IM Bi-Annual Status Reports. The LDOE shall also continue to select schools for targeted monitoring and perform student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Discipline protocol as outlined in the CJ
70

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 71 of 102
and the Addendum of the CJ during the fall 2016 school term for school selected for targeted monitoring during the 2015-2016 school year. In relation, IMs shall continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ. All school staff interviews and student file reviews shall be conducted on-site at each LEA by the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs during the fall 2016 school term and spring 2017 school term based on agreements established between LDOE legal personnel, monitoring personnel, and the IMs. The on-site visits are currently scheduled to occur from November 9-10, 2016 and November 14-17, 2016 for the fall 2016 term. The LDOE shall also continue to review the CAPs for the LEAs selected for targeted monitoring during the 2015-2016 school year at designated timelines outlined on these documents. In relation, the LDOE and IMs shall perform on-site monitoring visits for these LEAs during late January or early February 2017 to evaluate the status of policies and practices to ensure that each LEA is engaging in “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 11 of CJ). LEAs shall submit to the LDOE and IMs copies of the FBA and BIP monitoring rubric used to assess behavior assessments and plans for review. Completed copies of the rubric should be submitted to the LDOE monthly. The LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs will also review another sample of student files using the Discipline protocol from the CJ Addendum during on-site visits in the spring 2017 school term for LEAs selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 school term. In cases where individual or systemic noncompliance is observed, the LDOE shall require individual Corrective Action Plans to address student specific areas of noncompliance and school-based Corrective Action Plans to address areas of systemic noncompliance in all future monitoring reviews in order to meet the requirements established by this CJ.
71

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 72 of 102

SECTION IV (D) ENROLLMENT (pp. 11-15 of the CJ)

1.

The State Defendants shall annually disseminate to each Type 2 and Type 5 charter

school in New Orleans policy guidance describing the legal obligations of each Type 2 and

Type 5 charter school in New Orleans to enroll and serve students with disabilities pursuant to

federal law. The State Defendants will request that the principal of each Type 2 and Type 5

charter school acknowledge receipt of this guidance. The guidance will, at a minimum, contain:

(a) a summary of the legal obligations of the school to provide necessary services and

accommodations to students with disabilities; (b) a statement describing the obligations of the

school to enroll students with disabilities without regard to their disabilities; (c) a statement

advising the school that its staff is prohibited from informing or suggesting to parents of

students with disabilities that the parents should not enroll their child in the school because the

school does not provide the services or placement necessary for the child or because the child’s

disability would be better served at another school; and (d) a statement notifying the principal

that he or she can incur personal monetary damages for intentional discrimination and

operating in bad faith due to noncompliance with Section 504 (pp. 11-12 of CJ).

a.

The State Defendants shall disseminate the required policy guidance to each Type 2 or

Type 5 charter school in New Orleans annually by March 1 for the duration of this Agreement

(p. 12 of CJ).

b. The State Defendants shall provide the policy guidance to the Independent Monitor for

review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The

Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twenty-one

(21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within

seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any

72

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 73 of 102
disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (p. 12 of CJ).
Status of Compliance As reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, the LDOE policy document entitled, Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance, has been approved by all parties and fully meets the required guidelines as outlined in Section IV(D)(1) of the CJ. However, as previously reported, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with this requirement of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Specifically, the LDOE failed to comply with all provisions of Section IV(D)(1) of the CJ which requires the State Defendants to disseminate the Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance to each principal of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools by March 1 annually and request written receipt (i.e., signed attestations) of this guidance (page 12 of CJ).
The LDOE submitted the IMs with signed attestations on July 27, 2016. A review of these documents indicated that 100% of school administrators or school leaders across all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charters submitted signed attestations (e.g., Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance) for the 2016-2017 school year. Based on submission of the signed attestations, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the completion of this implementation activity as required under Section IV (D)(1) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to disseminate the approved Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document to all principals in NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs and
73

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 74 of 102
document receipt through the signed attestations (e.g., Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance) by March 1 annually for the duration of the CJ. In addition, pursuant to Section IV (D)(1)(b) of the CJ, the LDOE shall provide the policy guidance to the IMs for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration the CJ. 2. The Defendant-Intervenor shall annually disseminate to each school under its jurisdiction policy guidance describing the legal obligations of each school under its jurisdiction to enroll and serve students with disabilities pursuant to federal law. The Defendant- Intervenor will require the principal of each school under its jurisdiction to acknowledge receipt of this guidance. The guidance will, at a minimum, contain: (a) a summary of the legal obligations of the school to provide all necessary services and accommodations to students with disabilities; (b) a statement describing the obligations of the school to enroll students with disabilities without regard to their disabilities; (c) a statement advising the school that its staff is prohibited from informing or suggesting to parents of students with disabilities that the parents should not enroll their child in the school because the school does not provide the services or placement necessary for the child or because the child’s disability would be better served at another school; and (d) a statement notifying the principal that he or she can incur personal monetary damages for intentional discrimination and operating in bad faith due to noncompliance with Section 504 (p. 12 of CJ). a. The Defendant-Intervenor shall disseminate the required policy guidance to each school under its jurisdiction annually by March 1 for the duration of this Agreement (p. 12 of CJ).
74

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 75 of 102
b. The Defendant-Intervenor shall provide the policy guidance to the Independent Monitor for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration of this Agreement. The Independent Monitor will provide comments on the guidance to the Parties within twenty- one (21) days. The Parties may provide comments on the Independent Monitor’s comments within seven (7) days. The Independent Monitor will consider the Parties’ comments, mediate any disputes, and approve documents with any changes within fifteen (15) days (pp. 12-13 of CJ).
Status of Compliance As reported in the IMs Status Report dated June 3, 2016, OPSB has formally adopted the LDOE policy document entitled, Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance. As previously reported, based on the agreement between all parties, including both DefendantIntervenor (OSPB counsel) and Plaintiff’s counsel, the IMs agree the OPSB Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document is consistent with the required guidelines outlined in Section IV(D)(2) of the CJ. However, as noted in the IMs June status update, the OPSB was found to be in Noncompliance with this requirement of the CJ for the 20152016 school term. Specifically, the OPSB failed to comply with all provisions of Section IV(D)(2) of the CJ which requires the Defendants-Intervenor (OPSB) to disseminate Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance to each principal of all LEAs under its jurisdiction by March 1 annually and request written receipt (i.e., signed attestations) of this guidance (page 12 of CJ).
Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, submitted electronic documentation to the IMs during JulyAugust, 2016 indicating that all (100%) of OPSB school principals signed attestations of
75

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 76 of 102

the review of the model policy document entitled, Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance. As such, the IMs judge the OPSB to be in Substantial Compliance with the provisions required under Section IV(D)(2) of the CJ for 2016-2017 school year.
Recommendations It is recommended that OPSB continue to disseminate the approved Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document to all principals under its jurisdiction and document receipt through signed attestation by March 1 annually for the duration of the CJ. In addition, pursuant to Section IV(D)(2)(b) of the CJ, the LDOE shall provide the policy guidance to the IMs for review and approval annually by December 1 for the duration the CJ.

3.

The State Defendants shall require that each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New

Orleans annually develops a written description of its special education program, including, at

a minimum: (a) the name and contact information of the special education coordinator for the

school; (b) a description of how pupil appraisal, special education, and related services are

provided by the school; (c) a description of how the school plans to provide the continuum of

special education placements for students whose IEP placement is outside of the regular

education setting; (d) the current enrollment rate of students with disabilities served by the

school; (e) the current suspension rate of students with disabilities served by the school; (f) the

number of students with disabilities who are removed for disciplinary reasons for more than 10

school days in one academic year; and (g) an indication of the school’s accessibility to

individuals with mobility impairments.

The State Defendants shall require that the program descriptions for all Type 2 and Type 5

76

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 77 of 102
charter schools in New Orleans are made available to parents of students with disabilities at each school site and on each school’s website. RSD’s website will provide a link to the descriptions available on each school website, and parents who express an interest will be guided to this portion of RSD’s website when completing enrollment at an RSD Family Resource Center (p. 13 of CJ).
Status of Compliance The PB v White – Special Education Program Description Template revised by the LDOE and IMs on May 11, 2016 was reported in the IMs June, 2016 status report to include the required components as outlined in Section IV(D)(D)(3) in the CJ. Further, as also noted in the IM Status Report dated June, 2016, all (100%) of the NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs submitted completed program descriptions for the 2015-2016 school year. As such, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements of Section IV(D)(3) for the 2015-2016 school year.
However, as previously reported, the LDOE was found in Noncompliance for the 20152016 school year for failure to comply with the dissemination requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ. Specifically, the LDOE was found to be in Noncompliance for (a) failing to provide evidence that all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs made their respective Special Education Program Description template available for parents at each Charter school site, (b) failing to ensure that program descriptions were posted on each LEA’s website and (c) failing to post a link of the program descriptions developed for all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter schools online on the LDOE website and enrollnola website.
77

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 78 of 102
As previously reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, the Special Education Program Description template was revised to include information related to (a) students with orientation/mobility impairments and (b) descriptions of services provisions for students with disabilities who are placed in residential treatment and/or in a juvenile detention facility. The IMs conducted a thorough review each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA’s updated Special Education Program Description template and provided the LDOE with feedback and recommended edits for each NOLA Charter LEA reviewed. The LDOE submitted revised program description templates to the IMs on July 22, 2016 for review. A thorough review of Special Education Program Description templates for the 2016-2017 school term revealed that all (100%) of the NOLA Charter Type 2 and Type 5 LEAs have revised their program descriptions that include appropriate documentation and descriptions of service provisions as required in Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ. As such, The LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with this provision of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
With regard to the dissemination requirements of Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ, the LDOE submitted the IMs with an electronic copy of signed attestations (e.g., Attestation of Availability of Special Education Program Description-2016-2017) on July 27, 2016. A thorough review of these documents conducted by the IMs indicated that 100% of school principals across all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs submitted signed attestations.
As mentioned previously, the LDOE notified the IMs on August 4, 2016 that the Special Education Program Description templates had been placed online on each LEAs website, as well as, online on the LDOE website with a link posted to the enrollnola website. A review of each
78

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 79 of 102
NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA’s website indicated that all (100%) of the NOLA Charter LEAs have uploaded their respective Special Education Program Description templates to their school websites for the 2016-2017 school year. Similarly, a review of the LDOE website and enrollnola website by the IMs on August 10, 2016 revealed the RSD has successfully created a link for each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA’s Special Education Program Description template. Therefore, based on the evidence submitted related to the CJ requirements for the dissemination of special education program descriptions across all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements of Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
Recommendations The LDOE and OPSB shall continue to require each charter school to submit a Special Education Program Description template by the required timelines each school year. Secondly, it is recommended that each Charter LEA update their Special Education Program Description templates, as needed, to reflect any changes in (a) Special Education Director contact information, (b) Data Snapshots, (c) Descriptions of how Pupil Appraisal, Special Education and Related Services are provided to students and (d) Descriptions in the LEA’s Continuum of Supports. The IMs will continue to review all completed Special Education Program Description templates for existing charter schools, new charter schools, or charter schools scheduled for renewal during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years prior to the LDOE’s recommendations to BESE at the intervals designated above to ensure that the templates meet compliance with this section of the CJ. The IMs will also continue review LEA and LDOE websites to ensure all special education program descriptions continue to be accessible online at required websites.
79

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 80 of 102

4.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall annually develop a written description of OPSB's

special education program, including, at a minimum: (a) the name and contact information of

special education contacts at the district level and at the school level; (b) a description of how

pupil appraisal, special education, and related services are provided; (c) a description of how

the OPSB plans to provide the continuum of special education placements for students whose

IEP placement is outside of the regular education setting; (d) the current enrollment rate of

students with disabilities served by each OPSB school; (e) the current suspension rate of

students with disabilities served by each OPSB school; (f) the number of students with

disabilities who are removed for disciplinary reasons for more than 10 school days in one

academic year; and (g) an indication of the OPSB schools’ accessibility to individuals with

mobility impairments. The Defendant-Intervenor shall require that the OPSB special education

program description is made available to parents of students with disabilities at each school

site, on each school’s website under its jurisdiction, and on OPSB’s website (p. 13 of CJ).

Status of Compliance As previously reported, the Defendant-Intervenor (OPSB) adopted the LDOE draft Special Education Program Description template and submitted a completed program description template for OPSB for the 2015-2016 school year. As such, OPSB was found to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements outlined in Section IV (D) (4) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. However, as a result of OPSB’s failure to comply with the dissemination requirements of this Section of the CJ, the OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance for the 2015-2016 school term. Specifically, the OPSB was judged to be in noncompliance for (a) failing to provide evidence that all OPSB LEAs made the OPSB

80

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 81 of 102
Special Education Program Description template available to parents at each OPSB school site, (b) failing to post the OPSB Special Education Program Description” on the OPSB district website and (c) failing to ensure a link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description template was posted on each LEA’s website.
As mentioned previously, Dr. Wayne Stewart, OPSB counsel, provided the IMs with electronic documentation of the OPSB’s revised Special Education Program Description template for the 2016-2017 school year on July 30, 2016 for review and comment. The IMs, after a thorough review, verify that the OPSB Special Education Program Description template includes all required components and appropriate documentation and descriptions of service provisions for students with disabilities as required in Section IV(D)(4) of the CJ. As such, the OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with this provision of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
With regard to the Special Education Program Description dissemination requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(4) of the CJ, the OPSB indicated in a correspondence to the IMs on August 8, 2016 the OPSB Special Education Program Description template had been successfully uploaded to the OPSB district website. A review of the OPSB district website conducted by the IMs indicated that the 2016-2017 OPSB Special Education Program Description template has been successfully uploaded and is currently available for review. Finally, as noted numerous times previously, a review by the IMs on August 31, 2016; October 7, 2016, and October 14, 2016 revealed that a majority (i.e., 24 of 28) of the LEAs have successfully established the required link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description for the 2016-2017 school
81

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 82 of 102
year. However, given the vast majority of OPSB LEAs have complied with this dissemination provision of the CJ, a compliance determination in this regard will be reserved until the end of the fall 2016-2017 school year and reported in the IMs bi-annual status report. As such, to achieve a “substantial compliance” for this required CJ dissemination activity for the 2016-2017 school year, all LEAs under OPSB’s jurisdiction shall have the link established to the OPSB Special Education Program Description by December 15, 2016.
Recommendations The OPSB shall continue to submit a Special Education Program Description Template to the IMs by the August 1st each school year for the duration of the CJ. Secondly, it is recommended the OPSB update the OPSB Special Education Program Description template, as needed, to reflect any changes in (a) Special Education Director contact information, (b) Data Snapshots, (c) Descriptions of how Pupil Appraisal, Special Education and Related Services are provided to students and (d) Descriptions in the LEAs Continuum of Supports. The IMs will continue to review the OPSB Special Education Program Description template during the 2017-2018 school year and subsequent school years through the duration of the agreement to ensure that the templates meet compliance with this section of the CJ. Finally, the website links and/or Tab to the Special Education Program Description templates across numerous OPSB websites are somewhat difficult to locate. As such, it is strongly recommended that each OPSB LEA provide parents of students with disabilities with information detailing the exact website link and/or Tab required for easy access to this document. The IMs will continue to monitor and ensure the OPSB Special Education Program Description template is placed online at required websites annually.
82

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 83 of 102

5.

The State Defendants shall require each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school in New

Orleans to develop a written complaint investigation protocol describing the school’s process

for investigating allegations of discrimination on the basis of disability. The protocol shall

include the contact information of the individual at the school responsible for investigating

complaints of alleged discrimination; a process by which parents may make complaints; a

timeline for the school to conduct an investigation; the steps to be taken or the process by which

the school will conduct the investigation; the process by which the school will disseminate the

outcome of the investigation; and corrective action that may be undertaken as a result of

noncompliance. A summary description of the protocol shall be widely disseminated to parents

of students with disabilities enrolled at the school. The complaint investigation protocols shall

be developed for the sole purpose of investigating allegations of enrollment discrimination

arising under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the ADA and shall not supplant

the complaint management system or due process complaint procedures pursuant to the IDEA

(pp. 13-14 of CJ).

a.

The State shall develop a model written complaint investigation protocol that meets

the requirements identified in this section. This model will be available to any school upon

request, and will be provided to each Type 2 and Type 5 charter school by March 1, 2015 and

every school year thereafter (p. 14 of CJ).

b. Upon receipt of a complaint related to the enrollment practices of Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools, the State will: (i) provide the complainant in writing, either via electronic or U.S. Mail, with the contact information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal services providers; and (ii) where required under IDEA, initiate an investigation of the complaint (p.

83

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 84 of 102
14 of CJ).
Status of Compliance – Adoption of Complaint Procedures As reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter schools have adopted the approved [LEA] Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures template and summary description as required in Section IV(D)(5) and of the CJ. As such, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with LEA adoption of the complaint procedures as required in this section of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. This Substantial Compliance status should continue during 2016-2017 school term as all (100%) of the LEAs have continued to adopt the approved [LEA] Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures template and summary description for the upcoming school term.
Status of Compliance – Widely Disseminated Summary Description As reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with the dissemination requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(5)(b) of the CJ. Specifically, the LDOE failed to provide sufficient evidence that a summary description of the adopted complaint protocol was widely disseminated to parents of students with disabilities enrolled in each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA during the 2015-2016 school term. Additionally, the LDOE was found to be in noncompliance with Section IV(D)(5)(b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school. This provision of the CJ requires the LDOE’s to provide evidence that complainants were provided, in writing, with contact information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal service providers; and where required under the IDEA, initiate an investigation. However, the IMs received
84

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 85 of 102
correspondence from Candice Forest, LDOE legal counsel, noting the LDOE did not receive any formal or informal IDEA and/or discrimination complaints during the 2015-2016 school. As such, the status of this provision of the CJ should be considered to reflect Substantial Compliance for the 2015-2016 school year rather than reflecting the previously judged status of noncompliance.
The IMs received documentation from the LDOE on July 27, 2016 that included each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs plan for disseminating the summary description of the [LEA] Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures as required in Section IV(D)(5) and of the CJ. A thorough review conducted by the IMs revealed that all (100%) of the NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs have developed written dissemination plans including a wide range of methods for distributing complaint procedures to parents along with written assurances the Special Education Director for each Charter Organization would monitor compliance with adopted dissemination and complaint procedures. As such, after verifying that each NOLA Charter LEA has submitted an adequate written plan for distributing written “discrimination complaint” procedures to parents of students with disabilities, LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the dissemination provisions required in Section IV(D)(5) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
The LDOE, with regard to the requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(5)(b) (i.e. providing complainants with information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal service providers; and where required under the IDEA, initiate an investigation), submitted a document to the IMs on August 12, 2016 entitled, Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Contact Information. This document includes contact information for the U.S. Office of Civil Rights
85

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 86 of 102
complaint division, as well as, contact information for filing a complaint with the LDOE. As noted previously, Candice Forest, LDOE counsel, also reported in the correspondence to the IMs that during the 2016-2017 school year to date, the LDOE has received no formal discrimination complaints on behalf of students with disabilities enrolled in NOLA Type 2 or Type 5 Charter Schools. She further indicated this document will be provided to all individuals filing a formal disability discrimination complaint with the LDOE. The document is located in Appendix A. As such, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the provisions of Section IV(D)(5)(b) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs will closely monitor formal disability discrimination complaints filed with the LDOE during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years and to subsequent years under the CJ to verify compliance with this requirement of the CJ and report these findings in required status updates.
Recommendations It is recommended that each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA continue to comply with their written plan for disseminating the LEA’s adopted Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures document to parents of students with disabilities as required in section IV(D)(5) of the CJ. In relation, it is also recommended the LDOE provide evidence of compliance with requirements in Section IV(D)(5)(b) (i.e. providing complainants with OCR contact information, low cost legal services, investigating IDEA complaints) of the CJ by providing the IMs with a report indicating the number of formal disability discrimination complaints filed with the LDOE and evidence that complainants were provided with (a) OCR contact information, (b) contact information for low cost legal service provides and (c) where appropriate under the IDEA, initiated an investigation of the complaint filed. These updates should be submitted to the IMs by January 15 (discrimination complaints filed from August 1-
86

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 87 of 102
December 31) and June 1 (discrimination complaints filed with the LDOE from January 1July 31) annually for the duration of the CJ.

6.

The Defendant-Intervenor shall develop a written complaint investigation protocol

describing the Defendant-Intervenor’s process for investigating allegations of discrimination on

the basis of disability for all schools within its jurisdiction. The protocol shall include the contact

information of the division of OPSB responsible for investigating complaints of alleged

discrimination; a process by which parents may make complaints; a timeline for the Defendant-

Intervenor to conduct an investigation; the steps to be taken or the process by which the

Defendant-Intervenor will conduct the investigation; the process by which the Defendant-

Intervenor will disseminate the outcome of the investigation; and corrective action that may be

undertaken as a result of noncompliance. A summary description of the protocol shall be widely

disseminated to parents of students with disabilities enrolled in schools under the jurisdiction of

the Defendant-Intervenor. This complaint investigation protocol shall be developed for the sole

purpose of investigating allegations of enrollment discrimination pursuant to Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, and shall not supplant the complaint management

system or due process complaint procedures pursuant to the IDEA (p. 14 of CJ).

Status of Compliance As reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, the OPSB was found to be in Noncompliance with fulfilling the required implementation activities as outlined in Section IV(D)(6) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school term. Specifically, the OPSB failed to provide written evidence the OPSB had adopted an approved complaint protocol, (b) provided a plan for
87

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 88 of 102
dissemination or (c) verified the adopted complaint procedures have been disseminated to parents of students with disabilities.
Dr. Wayne Stewart, Attorney, OPSB counsel, and the OPSB Executive Director of Exceptional Student Services, reported to the IMs in an August 9, 2016 correspondence that the OPSB Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures policy document has been uploaded on the OPSB website along with an optional online complaint procedure that allows complainants to complete the entire complaint process on the website. All complaints are submitted directly to the OSPB IDEA Specialist. The IMs accessed and reviewed the OPSB district website in the Exceptional Children’s Services link and reviewed the OPSB Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures document, as well as, the on-line complaint application. This is a very impressive tool that allows for easy access to complaint procedures, the ability to file a complaint electronically, as well as, provides numerous mediums for individuals to contact and discuss the complaint directly with the OPSB IDEA Specialist. It should be noted that the placement of OPSB Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures document on the OPSB district website and LEA websites was not a specific requirement of the CJ. As such, the OPSB should be commended for moving beyond the minimum requirements of the CJ by increasing the accessibility of discrimination complaint procedures for parents of students with disabilities enrolled in OPSB.
In addition, OPSB officials also provided the IMs with each OPSB LEA’s written plan for disseminating complaint procedures to parents of students with disabilities for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs conducted a thorough review of these documents and observed that all
88

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 89 of 102

(100%) of the LEAs under OPSB’s jurisdiction have developed written plans that include a wide range of methods for disseminating complaint procedures to parents, as well as, signed attestations by each LEA administrator indicating their intention to fully comply with adopted discrimination complaint procedures and dissemination requirements. As such, after verifying required complaint policies and procedures, as well as, complaint dissemination requirements, the IMs judge the OPSB to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(6) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
Recommendations Each LEA under OPSB’s jurisdiction shall continue to comply with their submitted written plan for widely disseminating a written summary of the OPSB Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures to parents of students with disabilities as required under Section IV(D)(6) of the CJ. The IMs will continue to verify dissemination of the complaint procedures each school year.

7.

The State Defendants shall annually calculate the rate at which students with

disabilities choose not to reenroll at each LEA in New Orleans each school year (“mobility

rate”). Using this rate, the State Defendants shall annually select LEAs for targeted monitoring.

LEA selection, student file selection, file reviews, staff interviews, and school site visits shall be

conducted consistent with the processes detailed in in Addendum A. If the State Defendants’

targeted monitoring results in the identification of noncompliance, the State Defendants shall

require each LEA with validated noncompliance to undertake corrective actions sufficient to

remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not

reoccur, as detailed in Addendum A (p. 14 of CJ).

89

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 90 of 102

a.

The mobility rate shall be calculated by dividing the total number of students with

disabilities who are enrolled in a nonterminal grade at an LEA in New Orleans between

September 1 and May 31 and are not enrolled at the LEA on October 1 of the following school

year by the total number of students with disabilities enrolled in the LEA on October 1 (p. 14 of

CJ).

b.

The targeted monitoring activities described above and in Addendum A shall

supplement, not supplant, the annual monitoring activities undertaken by LDOE pursuant to its

general supervisory responsibilities under the IDEA. The monitoring of an LEA pursuant to

the monitoring obligations identified in this Agreement shall not influence LDOE’s selection

of that LEA for monitoring pursuant to LDOE’s general IDEA monitoring protocols (p. 15 of

CJ).

Overview of Status of Compliance for Monitoring Activities for the 2015-2016 School Year The IMs review of compliance with this section of the CJ consisted of evaluation of the three components of the LDOE’s monitoring activities. Specifically, the components being assessed for compliance included: (1) Identification of the charter schools selected for monitoring (e.g., determination of the annual new identification rate for each LEA and evaluation of the LDOE calculations); (2) Completion of targeted monitoring activities by the LDOE as established by the CJ and Addendum to the CJ (e.g., completion of appropriate monitoring activities by the LDOE, appropriate selection of student files, appropriate completion of the monitoring protocols, and correct identification of systemic compliance and/or noncompliance) and (3) Development of appropriate corrective actions “sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur.” (p. 14 of CJ). As previously reported in the
90

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 91 of 102
IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (D) (7) of the CJ and Section D (1) (a), D (1) (b) and D (1) (c) of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the documents submitted by the LDOE and verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs. Similarly, based on a review of the documents submitted by each identified NOLA Charter school and the LDOE’s completion of the staff interviews and case file reviews using the required Related Services protocol, the LDOE was also judged to be in Substantial Compliance with fulfilling the required provisions designated in Section IV(D)(7) of the CJ and Section D(2)(a), D(2)(b), and D(2)(c) on page 6 the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Based on a review of LDOE monitoring reports and a review of activities included in the Corrective Action Plans or Recommendation Plans for the three LEAs selected for targeted monitoring, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the selection, monitoring and corrective remedy provisions as required under Sections IV(D)(7), Section D(2)(a), D(2)(b), and D(2)(c) on page 6 the Addendum, Sections G(1)(a), G(1)(b), G(1)(c) and G(2)(a), G(2)(b), G(2)(c), G(2)(d) and G(2)(e) on page 8 of the Addendum of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year.
Status of Compliance – Noncompliance Determinations and Corrective Actions for the 2015-2016 School Year
Identification of Schools for Targeted Monitoring The IMs and Plaintiff’s counsel received correspondence from the LDOE on January 20, 2016 providing a list of charter schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term and confirmation that each charter was sent a notification email listing the requirements for
91

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 92 of 102
targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, desk file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of phone interviews with staff, call in phone numbers and instructions, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols during January 2016. The targeted monitoring notification email for each LEA is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The LDOE also conducted planning calls with each identified charter during late January 2016 to assist them in preparing for the staff interviews, student file submission process in a secured format, and desk file review process. The IMs also received an excel file from the LDOE on April 26, 2016 that included a column listing all Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools. A student enrollment spreadsheet entitled “Rate at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Choose Not to Reenroll Between 2013-14 to Oct. 1, 2014: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish” was submitted to the IMs on April 26, 2016. This spreadsheet was used to select LEAs for targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability by calculating the total number of students with disabilities who were enrolled in a nonterminal grade in each LEA from September 1, 2013 to May 31, 2014 and who were not enrolled in the same LEA on October 1, 2014 divided by enrollment of students with disabilities enrolled on October 1, 2014. This method of determining mobility rate was verified by the IMs and determined to be consistent with the guidelines required under Section IV(D)(7) of the CJ and Section D(1)(a) and D(1)(b) on page 6 of Addendum A. As required by the CJ, three schools were identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 semester in the area of Enrollment Stability. The three schools identified for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 semester in the area of Enrollment Stability included Joseph A. Craig, Mildred Osborne and G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy.
92

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 93 of 102
School Staff Interviews As mentioned in the previous IM report dated June 3, 2016, each LEA selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 term in the area of Enrollment Stability (e.g., G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy, Joseph A. Craig Charter School, Mildred Osborne Charter School) was required to participate in a school staff conference call and submit materials for a desk review. The required pre-monitoring staff conference call was conducted with each LEA during the weeks of February 15-19, 2016 or February 22-26, 2016 to obtain information from the school staff at each LEA regarding the practices and procedures as related to the areas of Enrollment Stability and Related Services. A standard bank of interview questions taken directly from the Addendum to the CJ was utilized by LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., Director of State-wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) to probe responses in the identified areas of interest and responses were encouraged from al staff members in the conference call. A review of participants revealed that the special education director, general education teacher, special education teacher, director of intervention, director of scholar support, and scholar support personnel participated in the staff interview process for G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy. A review of participants also revealed that a school administrator, special education administrator, general education teacher, and special education teacher participated in the staff interview process for Joseph A. Craig Charter School. Additionally, a review of participants revealed that a school administrator, special education administrator, general education teacher, and special education teacher participated in the staff interview process for Mildred Osborne Charter School. Specific information regarding the participants involved in the interview process and outcomes of staff interviews is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The LDOE concluded that the “[r]esults of this interview process revealed there were no areas of concern noted during the interview. The responses
93

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 94 of 102
provided by the school staff satisfactorily addressed all interview questions” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016) for G.W. Carver Preparatory School. The LDOE concluded that the “[r]esults of this interview process revealed non-compliance in the area of Enrollment Stability” for Joseph A. Craig Charter School. “With regard to practices and procedures in the area of Enrollment Stability, the school will benefit from conducting on- going internal reviews to ensure students are provided related services that enable them to progress in the general education setting” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016 for Joseph A. Craig Charter School). The LDOE concluded that the “[r]esults of this interview process revealed no areas of concern for Mildred Osborne Charter School. The LDOE also reported that “[t]he responses provided by the school staff satisfactorily addressed all interview questions” (p. 3 of the LDOE Monitoring Report dated June 8, 2016 for Mildred Osborne Charter School). Additional information may be obtained from the LDOE Monitoring Reports attached for each LEA in Appendix B.
Student Desk Reviews For the desk reviews, a protocol, developed from the Addendum of the CJ, was used by the LDOE monitoring personnel to analyze and rate each student file during reviews completed from March 22, 2016 to May 5, 2016. Specifically, the Related Services Protocol was selected for use for the three LEAs involved in targeted monitoring for the spring 2016 term based on requirements outlined in the CJ. The Related Services protocol included nine items which were taken directly from the Related Services protocol in Addendum A of the CJ and rated as “Yes”, “No”, or “N/A.” In relation, a LDOE monitoring team member (e.g., Director of State- wide Monitoring, Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring, Education Program Consultant Level 3) was assigned to lead the special education monitoring activities which included a review of
94

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 95 of 102
student files and other relevant information. Prior to the desk file review, each school was provided with a rubric explaining what the LDOE required from the school in order to evaluate compliance during the desk audit (e.g., LDOE Related Services Documentation Checklist located in Appendix A). In relation, the results of the LDOE desk file reviews for each LEA are located in Appendix B for review by the parties. The IMs conducted independent desk reviews of the student files submitted by the LDOE using the Related Services Protocol for each targeted LEA and compared their evaluation of the files with the LDOE monitors’ assessments.
Based on the targeted monitoring findings reported by the LDOE, Joseph A. Craig Charter School was issued a formal CAP based on noncompliance with regulation §300.17 (Free and Appropriate Public Education-FAPE). Specifically, the LDOE issued citations related to systemic and individual students concerns related to (a) no evidence of accommodations for behavior, math, and/or ELA and (b) removal of related service provisions without justification. In addition, Joseph A. Craig was also found to be in noncompliance with regulation §300.320(a) (2) (i) (A-B)-Definition of Individualized Education Program. Individual and/or systemic citations of noncompliance were issued by the LDOE for observed concerns across student files reviewed related to (a) inconsistent or conflicting information regarding related service provisions (i.e. logs not matching service minutes on IEP or services listed on IEP but not provided), (b) unmeasurable goals/objectives in ELA, Behavior, Math Communication and/or Self-Help skills, (c) incomplete or missing related service logs and/or (d) failure to follow up with parents to coordinate with external related service providers. Although the above-mentioned findings are generally consistent with the IMs findings after a targeted desk review using the Related Services protocol, the LDOE found no overall major concerns with regard to PLAAFP statements in eight (9) of ten (10) student case files reviewed. In contrast, the
95

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 96 of 102
IMs observed concerns with one or more of the PLAAFP statements in six (6) of seven (7) student files assessed. Specifically, the IMs observed concerns with regard to (a) missing PLAAPF statements (b) PLAAPF statements that were not measurable or failed to reasonably describe the student’s current level of functioning in data-based terms and/or (c) PLAAFP statements that failed to describe how the student’s disability directly affected their ability to participate and progress in the general curriculum. As mentioned numerous times previously during email correspondences and phone conferences with the plaintiff’s counsel, as well as, during a meeting with the Parties on September 22, 2016, this discrepancy in findings is primarily the result of a difference in scoring methods used to judge compliance among the LDOE monitoring staff and the IMs. That is, the IMs consistently judged protocol items as compliant only when 100% of the IDEA requirements (e.g. 7 of 7 PLAAFP statements observed) reviewed in a given student file was judged to be compliant. However, LDOE monitoring staff judged a protocol item as compliant when the majority of IDEA requirements (e.g., 6 of 7 PLAPPF statements observed) were observed to be compliant. As noted previously, this difference in scoring methods has been discussed with all parties and it has been agreed upon the 100% compliance rate for individual student files will be the standard for determining compliance in all future protocol reviews. Furthermore, regardless of the fact the LDOE judged the LEAs PLAAFP statements to reflect overall compliance, the Joseph A. Craig Charter School CAP includes required activities to address systemic, as well as, individual remedies to address this issue in addition to other areas of noncompliance. See Appendix B for additional information.
Based on the targeted monitoring findings reported by the LDOE, Mildred Osborne Charter School also required a formal CAP based on systemic noncompliance with regulation §300.17
96

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 97 of 102
(Free and Appropriate Public Education-FAPE). Specifically, the LDOE issued citations related to systemic and/or individual students concerns related to (a) failure to provide appropriate related service minutes as stated on the IEP, (b) unmeasurable goals in the areas of Behavior, Writing, Social and/or Math and (c) failure to provide and/or properly document related service provisions that were mandated on IEP. As mentioned previously, although the above-mentioned findings are generally consistent with the IMs targeted review using the Related Services protocol, the LDOE found no overall major concerns with the PLAAFP statements in nine (9) of ten (10) student case files reviewed. In contrast, the IMs observed concerns with one or more of the PLAAFP statements in seven (7) of ten (10) student files assessed. Specifically, the IMs observed concerns with regard to (a) ambiguous PLAAFP statements that were not measurable and/or failed to reasonably describe the student’s current level of functioning in data-based terms and/or (b) PLAAFP statements that failed to describe how the student’s disability directly affects their ability to participate and progress in the general curriculum. Again, as previously mentioned, this discrepancy in findings between the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs is directly related the difference scoring methods employed by the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff. Further, regardless of these differences, the Mildred Osborne Charter School’s CAP incorporates numerous required individual and/or systemic remedies to address PLAAFP statements, as well as, other areas of identified noncompliance. See Appendix B for additional information.
Finally, based on the targeted monitoring findings reported by the LDOE, G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy evidenced no systematic noncompliance in the area of Enrollment Stability Rate using the Related Services protocol as the primary, evidenced-based monitoring tool. The results outlined in G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy’s Monitoring Report indicated, with the exception of Communication area, annual goals and short-term
97

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 98 of 102
objectives were written in observable and measurable terms across all ten (100%) student files reviewed. As such, the LDOE did not require a formal CAP to address these observed concerns. Instead, the LDOE recommended the LEA immediately review/revise the Communication goals by August 31, 2016, and updated the revised measurable goals in SER on the same date. However, a concurrent desk review conducted by the IMs revealed concerns related to one or more goals and short-term objectives being unmeasurable in ten (10) of ten (10) student files reviewed in numerous Academic and Behavioral areas, including the area of Communication. In (100%) of the cases reviewed, specific concerns included one or more goals and/or short-term objectives that (a) failed to include the conditions or “givens” required to accomplish the goal, (b) were not objective and measurable, (c) failed to include the method of measurement for evaluation and/or (d) failed to include the time frame for mastery of the goal or short-term objective. In addition, although no findings of systemic or individual noncompliance were noted in the LDOE’s Monitoring Report for G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy with regard to student PLAAFP statements, a concurrent desk review conducted by the IMs indicated relative concerns with PLAAFP statements in seven (7) of ten (10) (70%) student case files reviewed. Specifically, there were consistent concerns observed across all academic areas with regard to (a) limited or vague descriptions of student’s functioning levels, (b) referencing standard scores or other metrics without indicating what these scores reflect in terms of functioning levels and/or (c) how the student’s disability affects his/her participation and progress in the general education curriculum. Again, as previously mentioned, this discrepancy in findings between the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs is directly related the difference in scoring methods employed by the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff. Further, regardless of these differences, the G.W. Carver Charter School Recommendation Plan incorporates numerous required individual, as well as, systemic remedies to address writing compliant measurable goals and PLAAFP statements. See
98

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 99 of 102
Appendix B for additional information.
Corrective Actions to Address Noncompliance On June 8, 2016, the LDOE submitted the cover letters, complete monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, IDEA Monitoring Results Summaries to address findings of noncompliance for identified students and Corrective Action Plan or Recommendation Plan templates directly to the LEAs and IMs. The cover letters, LDOE Monitoring Reports, IDEA Summary Reports and final CAPs or Recommendation Plans for the three LEAs are located in Appendix B for review by the parties.
As noted previously, based on the targeted monitoring findings reported by the LDOE, Joseph A. Craig Charter School required a formal CAP based on noncompliance with IDEA regulation §300.17 (Free and Appropriate Public Education-FAPE). In addition, Joseph A. Craig was also found to be in noncompliance with IDEA regulation §300.320(a) (2) (i) (A-B)-Definition of Individualized Education Program. Similarly, as noted previously, based on the targeted monitoring findings reported by the LDOE, Mildred Osborne Charter School also required a formal CAP based on noncompliance with IDEA regulation §300.17 (Free and Appropriate Public Education-FAPE). However, based on the targeted monitoring findings reported by the LDOE, G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy evidenced no systematic noncompliance in the area of Enrollment Stability Rate.
The CAPs or Recommendation Plans for Joseph A. Craig, Mildred Osborne Charter School and G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy were submitted to the LDOE to the IMs on July 11-12, 2016
99

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 100 of 102
for review. In addition, LDOE monitoring personnel submitted correspondence via email to the IMs on July 12, 2016 that they provided technical assistance (TA) to each LEA during June 2016 to assist them with CAP or Recommendation Plan development. This TA consisted of a telephone call with the Special Education Director at each school to review the findings of the LDOE Monitoring Reports, IDEA Summary Reports, inclusion of appropriate activities in the CAPs or Recommendation Plans to effectively address areas of concern and appropriate scheduling and planning to ensure all areas of concern were addressed in a timely manner throughout the school year. The discussion also reportedly addressed the provision of appropriate training early during the school year on relevant policies and procedures. Special education personnel were also encouraged to seek assistance from LDOE monitoring personnel throughout the school year to address any questions or concerns related to special education programming. After reviewing the CAPs or Recommendation Plans proposed by the LDOE, the IMs discussed their concerns with the Section Leader of IDEA Monitoring and recommended additional solutions to address the concerns noted by the IMs across the three (3) LEAs selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Discipline. The IMs and LDOE monitoring personnel collaborated during the month of July 2016 to add additional professional development and implementation activities to the CAPs and Recommendation Plans in order to address concerns observed during the monitoring process. Each CAP or Recommendation Plan includes the following components: (1) Activities and Action Steps to Address Concerns Identified in the LDOE Monitoring Report, (2) Date Activity Begins, (3) Person(s) Responsible, (4) Documentation to Be Submitted to Statewide Monitoring, (5) Documentation Due Date and (6) Documentation Status. Overall, the CAPs include specific activities designed to address the provision of professional development, consistent implementation of policies and procedures related to Enrollment Stability and Related Services, and actions designed to address concerns
100

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 101 of 102
related to student specific findings. A copy of the CAP or Recommendation Plan for each LEA selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability is located in Appendix B for review by the parties. Based on a review of the CAPs or Recommendation Plan for the charter schools, the IMs have concluded that the plans are sufficient to remedy the identified areas of noncompliance as required by this section of the CJ.
Recommendations The LDOE shall continue to review the CAPs or the Recommendation Plan for the LEAs selected for targeted monitoring during the 2015-2016 school year in the area of Enrollment Stability at designated timelines outlined on these documents. In relation, the LDOE and IMs shall perform on-site monitoring visits during late January 2017 or February 2017 to evaluate the status of policies and practices to ensure that each LEA is engaging in “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” (p. 14 of CJ). The LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs will also review another sample of student IEPs using the Related Service protocol from the CJ Addendum and IEP Evaluation Rubric to evaluate the quality of IEP goals and PLAAPF statements during on-site visits in the spring 2017 school term. The LDOE shall also continue to select schools for targeted monitoring and perform student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Related Services or Discipline protocol as outlined on pages 8-9 of the CJ and on pages 2-4 of the Addendum during the fall 2016 school term for schools selected for targeted monitoring for the 2016-2017 school year. In relation, the IMs will continue to participate in the protocol review and staff interview process and verify completion of required activities by the LDOE as outlined in the CJ. All school staff interviews and student file reviews shall be conducted on-site at each LEA by the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs during the fall 2016 school term and spring 2017
101

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 354 Filed 12/06/16 Page 102 of 102 school term based on agreements established between LDOE legal personnel and monitoring personnel and the IMs. On-site monitoring visits for the fall 2016 term are scheduled for November 9-10, 2016 and November 14-17, 2016. In cases where individual or systemic noncompliance is observed, the LDOE shall require individual Corrective Action Plans to address student specific areas of noncompliance and school-based Corrective Action Plans to address areas of systemic noncompliance in all future monitoring reviews in order to meet the requirements established by this CJ.
102

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 71
Office of the Independent Monitors P.B., et al., v. John White, et al. (Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049) Status Report to the Court May 18, 2017
A. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Section V(9) on page 16 of the Consent Judgment (CJ) filed with the Court
on March 25, 2015, the Independent Monitors shall file with the Court and provide the Parties with reports describing the steps taken by the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor to implement the Agreement and evaluate the extent to which the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor have complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement. Pursuant to Section V(9)(a), the Monitor shall issue a status report every 120 days after the first year of implementation of the Agreement. The reports shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment at least 14 days prior to their issuance. The Monitor shall consider the Parties’ responses and make appropriate changes, if any, before issuing the report. These reports shall be written with due regard for the privacy interests of the students. Pursuant to Section V(9)(b) of the CJ, the Independent Monitors shall evaluate the state of compliance for each relevant provision of the Agreement using the following standards: (1) Substantial Compliance and (2) Noncompliance. In order to assess compliance, the Monitor shall review a sufficient number of pertinent documents to accurately assess compliance and interview any necessary staff or personnel. The Monitor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from the State Defendants or Defendant-Intervenor regarding progress toward compliance, and examining supporting documentation. Each Monitor report shall describe the steps taken by the Monitor to assess compliance, including documents reviewed and individuals interviewed, and the factual basis for each of the Monitor’s findings. Pursuant to
1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 2 of 71
Section V(10) of the CJ, reports issued by the Monitor shall not be admissible against the State Defendants and the Defendant-Intervenor in any proceeding other than a proceeding related to the enforcement of this Agreement initiated and handled exclusively by the State Defendants, the Defendant- Intervenor, or the Plaintiff’s counsel. The State Defendants shall be released from the terms of the CJ when they have 1) achieved Substantial Compliance with each provision of the Agreement for which they are assigned responsibility; 2) maintained Substantial Compliance for a period of two years; and 3) subject to Court approval (p. 18 of the CJ).
The IM bi-annual status report addresses several activities completed by the State Defendants or Defendant-Intervenor during the 2016-2017 school year as required by the CJ. First, the IMs provide a review and update regarding decisions of “Substantial Compliance” or “Noncompliance” as related the development and dissemination of model documents consistent with the requirements of the CJ. Second, the IMs provide a review and update regarding compliance determinations as related to the targeted monitoring activities for the 2015-2016 school year. Finally, the IMs provide a review of the targeted monitoring activities completed during the fall 2016 semester along with an update regarding decisions of “Substantial Compliance” or “Noncompliance” as related to specific monitoring activities undertaken by the LDOE (e.g., appropriate selection of schools, completion of staff interviews and student file reviews, development and dissemination of LEA targeted monitoring reports, development and dissemination of corrective action plans). The sequence of information in this IM status report follows the general structure of the CJ. Language from each substantive provision of the Agreement or Addendum A (i.e., monitoring protocols) of the CJ is incorporated into the IM status report when appropriate.
2

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 3 of 71
B. DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF MODEL DOCUMENTS The LDOE and/or OPSB developed several model documents designed to meet the
specific requirements of the CJ (e.g., Child Find Written Guidance model template, Special Education Program Description model template, Procedural Safeguards Checklist – Disciplinary Removal of Students with Disabilities model template, model Discipline Policy for Students with Disabilities, Undocumented Suspension Guidance model template, Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools model template, Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance model template, Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures model template). As previously stated in the IM status report to the Court dated June 3, 2016, the parties have approved the content contained within each of these documents. In relation, these model documents were presented to the Court in Appendix A attached to the June 3, 2016 IM Status Report. In addition, related documents (e.g., revised Child Find Written Guidance Model document for RSD and OPSB LEAs for the 2016-2017 school year, Office of Civil Rights Complaint and Investigation document for the 2016-2017 school year, school links to Special Education Program Descriptions documents for LDOE and OPSB LEAs) were presented to the Court in Appendix A attached to the IM Status Report dated November 7, 2016. The CJ requires that charter LEAs provide evidence that they have reviewed or, when relevant, disseminated this information each school year. As such, the IMs provided an update regarding the status of the model documents, additional documents (e.g., Student Codes of Conduct, LEA Handbooks, Model PBIS documents, etc.), and related activities for the 2016- 2017 school year in each relevant section of the IM Status Report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016. The following sections provide a status review or update for the State Defendants (LDOE) and Defendant-Intervenor (OPSB).
3

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 4 of 71
1. Status Review or Update for the State Defendants a. Child Find Provisions (pp. 6-8 of the CJ)
As reported on pages 4-6 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A)(1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the template entitled, PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance and verification of the receipt of the document by the LEAs. In relation, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 8 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016 based on a review of the revised PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance template and receipt of signed attestations from each LEA school principal or school leader.
As reported on page 10 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(2) for the 20152016 school year as all LEAs provided descriptions, through the Special Education Program Description template, of the school’s staff and/or outside contractors providing pupil appraisal services. Based on completion of the 2016-2017 version of the Special Education Program Description template by LEAs under the jurisdiction of RSD and placement of the completed template on each LEA website, LDOE website, and link established from the enrollnola website, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (2) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on pages 11-12 of the IM status reported submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
As reported on page 20 the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(4)(a-e) for the 2015-
4

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 5 of 71
2016 school year based upon attestation of receipt of the 2015-2016 version of PB v White Child Find Written Guidance document. In relation, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(4)(a-e) for the 2016-2017 school year based on the receipt of documentation from the LDOE revealing that the 2016-2017 version of the PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance document was disseminated to all charter schools under LDOE jurisdiction and a review of signed attestations from each LEA as reported on page 30 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
b. Related Services Provisions (pp. 8-9 of the CJ) The LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on page 26 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016. Based on the submission of Special Education Program Description templates to the IMs during the summer 2016 term and placement of the templates on the required websites, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 33 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
c. Discipline Provisions (pp. 9-11 of the CJ) The LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV(C)(1)(a)(i-ii) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on page 41 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016. The LDOE was judged to be in noncompliance because the IMs examination of the Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities document revealed the policy did not include language to address the LEAs plan for supporting behavior and discipline pursuant to this section of the CJ. Subsequently, based on the submission of the required documentation related to
5

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 6 of 71
discipline regulations and safeguards for students with disabilities, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(1)(a)(i-ii) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 49 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
As reported on page 47 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Technical Assistance provisions of Section IV (C)(3)(a-b) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year based on a review of related technical assistance material including the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance template, the Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools template, and verification documents (e.g., signed attestations of dissemination of these documents) provided by each LEA. However, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance regarding the annual professional development provisions of Section IV(C)(3) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year, given a number of concerns expressed by the Plaintiff’s counsel in relation to the presentation “Discipline of Students with Disabilities”. As such, during a meeting with the parties and IMs on February 28, 2016, it was agreed upon by all parties the IMs would develop and provide additional professional development to school staff regarding discipline policies and procedures for students with disabilities during the fall semester of the 2016-2017 school year. Based on the evidence submitted to the IMs verifying signed attestations from all school principals or school leaders of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter Schools for the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance and Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools and verification that representatives from each NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEA attended a half-day professional development workshop entitled “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” on September 28-29, 2016, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the technical assistance and annual professional development activities required in Section IV(C)(3)(a-b) of
6

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 7 of 71
the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. d. Enrollment Provisions (pp. 11-15 of the CJ)
As reported in the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, the LDOE policy document entitled, Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance, has been approved by all parties and fully meets the required guidelines as outlined in Section IV(D)(1)(a-b) of the CJ. However, as previously reported on page 65 of the June 3, 2016 IM status report, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with this requirement of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Specifically, the LDOE failed to comply with all provisions of Section IV(D)(1) of the CJ which requires the State Defendants to disseminate the Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document to each principal of NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 charter schools by March 1 annually and request written receipt (i.e., signed attestations) of this guidance (page 12 of CJ). Subsequently, based on submission of the signed attestations (e.g., Attestation of Review of Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance), the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the completion of this implementation activity as required under Section IV (D)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 20162017 school year as reported on page 73 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
The LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements of Section IV(D)(3) for the 2015-2016 school year for submitting the revised PB v White – Special Education Program Description template for review and ensuring that all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 charter LEAs submitted completed program descriptions as reported on page 71 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016. However, the LDOE was found in Noncompliance for the 2015-2016 school year for failure to comply with the dissemination requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ. Specifically, the LDOE was found to be in
7

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 8 of 71
Noncompliance for (a) failing to provide evidence that all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter LEAs made their respective Special Education Program Description template available for parents at each charter school site, (b) failing to ensure that program descriptions were posted on each LEA’s website and (c) failing to post a link of the program descriptions developed for all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter schools online on the LDOE website and enrollnola website. A thorough review of Special Education Program Description templates for the 20162017 school term revealed that all (100%) of the NOLA Charter Type 2 and Type 5 LEAs revised their program descriptions to include appropriate documentation and descriptions of service provisions as required in Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ. As such, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with this provision of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 78 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016. In relation, LDOE was also judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the dissemination requirements of Section IV(D)(3) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 79 on the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
As reported on pages 77-78 of the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, all NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter schools have adopted the approved [LEA] Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures template and summary description as required in Section IV(D)(5) and of the CJ. As such, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with LEA adoption of the complaint procedures as required Section IV(D)(5)(a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. However, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with the requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(5)(b) of the CJ in the June 3, 2016 IM status report. Specifically, this provision of the CJ requires the LDOE’s to provide evidence that complainants were provided, in writing, with contact information for the Office of Civil Rights and low cost legal service providers; and
8

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 9 of 71
where required under the IDEA, initiate an investigation. In response to this finding of noncompliance, LDOE legal counsel provided correspondence revealing that the LDOE did not receive any formal or informal IDEA and/or discrimination complaints during the 2015-2016 school year. As such, the IMs judged the LDOE to be in Substantial Compliance with this provision of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on pages 84-85 of the IM status report dated November 7, 2016. In addition, the LDOE submitted evidence to the IMs demonstrating that all (100%) of the LEAs adopted the approved [LEA] Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures template and summary description for the 2016-2017 school year and a written plan for distributing the document to parents of students with disabilities on July 27, 2016. As such, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with all requirements of Section IV(D)(5)(a-b) for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on pages 84-85 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016. In relation, LDOE legal counsel submitted a signed attestation to the IMs on February 1, 2017 certifying that the LDOE has received no allegations of enrollment discrimination arising under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Additionally, on February 22, 2017 LDOE legal counsel also submitted signed attestations of the review of the Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document from fifty-seven charter school leaders under the jurisdiction of the LDOE Recovery School District for the 2017-2018 school year. Summary of the Status of Compliance Determinations
Overall, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with nine of fourteen (64%) substantive provisions of the CJ regarding the development, adoption, and dissemination of model documents for the 2015-2016 school year. A review of status determinations for the 2015-2016 school year by the IMs is presented in the Summary of Compliance Status document
9

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 10 of 71
located in Appendix A. In relation, the LDOE maintained Substantial Compliance with the aforementioned
provisions of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school which represents the initial year of the required two consecutive years of maintenance as outlined in Section VIII(2) on page 18 of the CJ. The LDOE achieved Substantial Compliance with fourteen of fourteen (100%) of the substantive provisions in the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. Specifically, the LDOE achieved initial Substantial Compliance for Sections IV(C)(1)(a)(i-ii) Review of the Code of Conduct, Disciplinary Policies, and Plan for Supporting Positive Behavior (LA Stat 17:251-252); IV(C)(3)(a-b) Professional Development; IV(D)(1)(a-b) Legal Requirements to Serve Students with Disabilities, and IV(D)(3) Dissemination of the Special Education Program during the fall semester of 2016-2017 school year. This represents the initial year of Substantial Compliance for these provisions with the CJ. As such, the LDOE shall be required to maintain compliance for two consecutive school years to meet the requirements outlined in Section VIII(2) on page 18 of the CJ. A review of status determinations for the 2016-2017 school year by the IMs is also presented in the Summary of Compliance Status document located in Appendix A. Finally, LDOE legal counsel submitted model documents for adoption and/or dissemination during the 2017-2018 school year to the IMs for review on February 16, 2017, and indicated that the content of each document has not changed from the 2016-2017 school year. A review of the model documents by the IMs on February 16, 2017 verified that the content remained the same for the upcoming school year. Once required revisions are made to the model documents (e.g., updates to the Special Education Program Description document for the 2017-2018 school year) and signed attestations confirming review and/or dissemination of required documents for the 2017-2018 school year are received, the IMs will provide an update in future IM status reports.
10

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 11 of 71
2. Status Review or Update for the Defendant-Intervenor a. Child Find Provisions (pp. 6-8 of the CJ)
The OPSB initially adopted the PB v White – Child Find Written Guidance document for the 2016-2017 school year. As such, the IMs did not provide a judgment of compliance for the 2015-2016 school year in previous IM status reports. Based on a review of the revised PB v White - Child Find Written Guidance document and receipt of signed attestations from each LEA school principal or school leader, the OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (1) (a-c) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 9 of the IM status reported submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
OPSB and Friends of King adopted the revised Special Education Program Description document for the 2016-2017 school year during the summer 2016 school term and the IMs verified that a total of 24 of 28 (86%) LEAs successfully provided a link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description template on their respective websites by October 14, 2016. However, four OPSB LEAs were not observed to have a link established from their individual websites to the OPSB document and were in the process of developing their school-based websites during the fall 2016 school semester. As such, the IMs recommended that all LEAs under OPSB’s jurisdiction have the link established to the OPSB Special Education Program Description by December 15, 2016. OPSB counsel provided correspondence with website links on December 13, 2016 to the IMs demonstrating compliance with this requirement of the CJ. The IMs also verified that the school websites did link directly to the OPSB Special Education Program Description template on the same date. As such, OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with IV(A)(2) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
Based on dissemination of the 2016-2017 school year version of the PB v White Child
11

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 12 of 71
Find Written Guidance document and submission of signed attestations from LEAs, OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (A) (4) (a-e) of the CJ for the 20162017 school year as reported on page 30 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
b. Related Services Provisions (pp. 8-9 of the CJ) OPSB was judged by the IMs to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on pages 26-27 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016. In relation, OPSB counsel provided a revised copy of the OPSB Special Education Program Description template on June 30, 2016 and the Type 3b Charter School Association, Friends of King, on July 13, 2016. A review of these documents by the IMs revealed that the related service components of Section D of the 2016-2017 school year versions of the Special Education Program Description templates were completed as required by Sections IV(B)(1)(a) and IV(B)(1)(b) of the CJ. The IMs verified that the 2016-2017 school year version of the Special Education Program Description templates for both OPSB and the Friends of King School District were located online on the OPSB district website on August 10, 2016. However, four OPSB schools still needed to establish the link to the revised OPSB Special Education Program Description template by December 15, 2016 for OPSB to obtain compliance with this provision of the CJ. As mentioned previously in this report, OPSB counsel provided evidence of compliance with this requirement and the IMs verified the school-based links on December 13, 2016. As such, OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(1)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year.
c. Discipline Provisions (pp. 9-11 of the CJ) As reported on page 43 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016,
12

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 13 of 71
compliance for Section IV (C) (2)(a)(i-ii) of the CJ could not be evaluated until each charter LEA provided written descriptions of the IDEA’s disciplinary procedural protections and procedural safeguards for students with disabilities, and their plan for supporting school behavior and discipline in compliance with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. § 17:251- 252 (p. 10 of CJ). Therefore, OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV (C) (2) for the 20152016 school year. Based on adoption of the 2016-2017 school year version of the LDOE Discipline Policy & Procedures of Students with Disabilities document, receipt of signed attestations from all (100%) of LEA school principals under OPSB’s jurisdiction and the submission of the Student Assistant Team (SAT) Handbook, the OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(2)(a)(i-ii) for the 2016- 2017 school year as reported on page 51 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
As reported on page 50 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance with the technical assistance provisions of Section IV (C) (4)(a-b) for the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of submitted documentation. In relation, OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the professional development provisions of Section IV (C) (4)(a-b) for the CJ for the 2015-16 year based on a review of the workshop conducted on “Discipline of Students with Disabilities” and verification that representatives from 100% of OPSB LEAs attended the training. OPSB reported that the Annual Professional Development was conducted September 12, 2016 as reported on page 51 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016. Based on receipt of signed attestations regarding the dissemination of the Parent FAQs: Special Education in Charter Schools document and review of the PB v White – Undocumented Suspension Guidance document and documentation from OPSB counsel verifying that representatives from all (100%)
13

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 14 of 71
of OPSB LEAs attended the required professional development sessions, the OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the technical assistance and professional development activities required in Section IV(C)(4)(a-b) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 57 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
d. Enrollment Provisions (pp. 11-15 of the CJ) As reported on page 68 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016, OPSB formally adopted the LDOE Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document. However, as noted in the June 3, 2016, IM status report, the OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance with this requirement of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. Specifically, the OPSB failed to comply with all provisions of Section IV(D)(2)(a-b) of the CJ which requires the Defendants-Intervenor (OPSB) to disseminate the Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document to each principal of all LEAs under its jurisdiction by March 1 annually and request written receipt (i.e., signed attestations) of this guidance (page 12 of CJ). In relation, based on receipt of signed attestations from all (100%) of OPSB school principals verifying review of the 2016-2017 school year version of the Enrollment Discrimination Policy Guidance document, OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the provisions required under Section IV(D)(2)(a-b) for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 76 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016. As reported on pages 74-75 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016, the OPSB adopted the LDOE Special Education Program Description template and submitted a completed program description template for OPSB for the 2015-2016 school year. As such, OPSB was found to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements outlined in Section IV (D) (4) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. However, as a result of OPSB’s failure to comply with the
14

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 15 of 71
dissemination requirements of this Section of the CJ, OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance for the 2015-2016 school year. Specifically, the OPSB was judged to be in noncompliance for (a) failing to provide evidence that all OPSB LEAs made the OPSB Special Education Program Description template available to parents at each OPSB school site, (b) failing to post the OPSB Special Education Program Description” on the OPSB district website and (c) failing to ensure a link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description template was posted on each LEA’s website. After thorough review, the IMs verified that the OPSB Special Education Program Description template included all required components and appropriate documentation and descriptions of service provisions for students with disabilities as required in Section IV(D)(4) of the CJ on July 30, 2016. As such, the OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with this provision of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on page 81 of the IM status report dated November 7, 2016. Regarding the Special Education dissemination requirements outlined in this section of the CJ, the IMs observed that a majority (i.e., 24 of 28 LEAs) successfully established the required link to the OPSB Special Education Program Description for the 2016-2017 school year. In relation, the IMs verified on December 13, 2016 that the remaining four OPSB schools successfully established the required link to the 2016-2017 school year version of the OPSB Special Education Program Description. As such, OPSB is judged to be in Substantial Compliance for the 2016-2017 school year as OPSB counsel provided evidence of compliance with this provision prior to the December 15, 2016 deadline.
As reported on page 80 of the IM Status Report dated June 3, 2016, the OPSB was judged to be in Noncompliance with fulfilling the required implementation activities as outlined in Section IV(D)(6) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school term. Specifically, the OPSB failed to
15

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 16 of 71
provide written evidence the OPSB had adopted an approved complaint protocol, (b) provided a plan for dissemination or (c) verified the adopted complaint procedures have been disseminated to parents of students with disabilities. OPSB counsel and the OPSB Executive Director of Exceptional Student Services reported to the IMs in a correspondence dated August 9, 2016, that the OPSB Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures policy document has been uploaded on the OPSB website along with an optional online complaint procedure that allows complainants to complete the entire complaint process on the website. All complaints are submitted directly to the OSPB IDEA Specialist. The IMs accessed and reviewed the OPSB district website in the Exceptional Children’s Services link and reviewed the OPSB Disability Discrimination Complaint Procedures document, as well as, the on-line complaint application. In addition, OPSB officials also provided the IMs with each OPSB LEA’s written plan for disseminating complaint procedures to parents of students with disabilities for the 2016-2017 school year. The IMs conducted a thorough review of these documents and observed that all (100%) of the LEAs under OPSB’s jurisdiction have developed written plans that include a wide range of methods for disseminating complaint procedures to parents, as well as, signed attestations by each LEA administrator indicating their intention to fully comply with adopted discrimination complaint procedures and dissemination requirements. After verifying required complaint policies and procedures, as well as, complaint dissemination requirements, OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the requirements outlined in Section IV(D)(6) of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year as reported on pages 88-89 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016. Summary of the Status of Compliance Determinations
Overall, the OPSB was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with four of fourteen
16

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 17 of 71
(29%) CJ provisions of the CJ regarding the development, adoption, and dissemination of model documents for the 2015-2016 school year. As such, the OPSB achieved initial Substantial Compliance with the following provisions in the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year: IV(A)(2) Charter renewal and Application Process and Description of Pupil Appraisal Services in the OPSB Special Education Program Description document; IV(B)(1)(a-b) Full array of Related Services and personnel providing services in the OPSB Special Education Program Description document; IV(C)(4)(a-b) Professional Development; and IV(D)(4) Written Description of the Special Education Program in the OPSB Special Education Program Description document. A review of compliance determinations by the IMs for the 2015-2016 school year is presented in the Summary of Compliance Status document in Appendix A.
In relation, the OPSB has maintained Substantial Compliance with the aforementioned provisions of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year which represents initial year of the required two consecutive years of maintenance as outlined in Section VIII(3) on page 18 of the CJ. The OPSB achieved Substantial Compliance with fourteen of fourteen (100%) of the substantive provisions in the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. This represents the initial year of Substantial Compliance for ten of the fourteen substantive provisions with the CJ. As such, the OPSB shall be required to maintain compliance for two consecutive school years to meet the requirements outlined in Section VIII(3) on page 18 of the CJ. A review of compliance determinations by the IMs for the 2016-2017 school year is presented in the Summary of Compliance Status document in Appendix A.
C. TARGETED MONITORING ACTIVITIES FOR THE 2015-2016 SCHOOL YEAR 1. Child Find Provisions (pp. 6-8 of the CJ) for the 2015-2016 School Year
Three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016
17

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 18 of 71
school semester based on a review of child find data for the 2014-2015 school year. These targeted schools included Joseph A. Craig Charter School, Lake Area New Technology Early College High School, and Sophie B. Wright Charter School. As previously reported on page 12 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(3)(a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the documents submitted by LDOE and verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs. In contrast, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV(A)(3)(b) and Section A(2)(a) of Addendum A of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as a result of the targeted LEA’s failure to submit the required random, representative sample of students as reported on page 16 of the June 3, 2016 IM status report. Finally, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the targeted monitoring activities and corrective actions requirement this section of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the required documents (e.g., LDOE Monitoring Reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, and Corrective Action Plans) as reported on page 15 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
2. Related Services Provisions (pp. 8-9 of the CJ) for the 2015-2016 School Year Three charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016
school term based on a review of related services data for the 2014-2015 school year. These targeted schools included Algiers Technology Academy, International High School of New Orleans, and Landry-Walker High School. As previously reported on page 29 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(2)(a) of the CJ and Section B(1)(a-c) of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the documents submitted by LDOE and
18

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 19 of 71
verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs. In relation, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the targeted monitoring sections of the CJ and Addendum of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on page 35 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016. Specifically, the LDOE completed the staff interviews and student file reviews using the Related Services protocol during the spring 2016 term as designated in Section IV(B)(2)(b) of the CJ and Sections B(3)(a), B(4)(a), B(4)(b), B(5)(a) on pages 3-4 of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year. After reviewing the required documentation (e.g., LDOE monitoring reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, Corrective Action Plans or Recommendation Plan, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(2)(b) of the CJ and Sections B(3)(a), B(4)(a), B(4)(b), B(5)(a) on pages 3-4 of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on page 36 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
3. Discipline Provisions (pp. 9-11 of the CJ) for the 2015-2016 School Year Three schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 school
semester based on a review of discipline data for the 2014-2015 school year. These schools included International High School of New Orleans, Cohen College Preparatory Charter School, and Crescent Leadership Academy. As previously reported in the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (C) (5a) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as a result of properly calculating the extended disciplinary removal rate as required by the CJ. However, as previously reported on page 54 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Noncompliance with Section IV(C)(5b) of the CJ and Sections C(1)(c) and C (2) (a) of the CJ Addendum for the 2015-2016 based on a review of targeted monitoring documents submitted
19

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 20 of 71
by each identified charter school, and completion of the student file reviews and staff interviews using the required Discipline protocol. Specifically, the determination of noncompliance was based on the fact the selection of students in discipline failed to include a full year of discipline data as outlined in Section C(2)(a) of Addendum A of the CJ. Furthermore, noncompliance was judged and the result of Crescent Leadership Academy (CLA) being excluded from undergoing targeted desk reviews during the spring 2015-2016 school year. Based on a review of the targeted monitoring provisions outlined in this section of the CJ and related documentation submitted by the LDOE (e.g., LDOE monitoring reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, Corrective Action Plans), the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(5)(b) of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on page 60 of the IM status report dated November 7, 2016.
4. Enrollment Provisions (pp. 11-15 of the CJ) for the 2015-2016 School Year Three schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the spring 2016 school term
based on a review of enrollment data for the 2014-2015 school year. These schools included Joseph A. Craig, Mildred Osborne, and G.W. Carver Preparatory Academy. As previously reported on page 86 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on June 3, 2016, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV (D) (7) of the CJ and Section D (1) (a), D (1) (b) and D (1) (c) of the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year based on a review of the documents submitted by the LDOE and verification of the calculations in the excel spreadsheet by the IMs. Similarly, based on a review of the documents submitted by each identified NOLA Charter school and the LDOE’s completion of the staff interviews and case file reviews using the required Related Services protocol, the LDOE was also judged to be in Substantial Compliance with fulfilling the required provisions designated in Section IV(D)(7)
20

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 21 of 71
of the CJ and Section D(2)(a), D(2)(b), and D(2)(c) on page 6 the Addendum to the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on pages 86-87 of the IM status report dated June 3, 2016. Based on a review of targeted monitoring activities and related documents (e.g., LDOE monitoring reports, IDEA Monitoring Results Summary, Corrective Action Plans) for the three LEAs selected for targeted monitoring, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with the selection, monitoring and corrective remedy provisions as required under Sections IV(D)(7), Section D(2)(a), D(2)(b), and D(2)(c) on page 6 the Addendum, Sections G(1)(a), G(1)(b), G(1)(c) and G(2)(a), G(2)(b), G(2)(c), G(2)(d) and G(2)(e) on page 8 of the Addendum of the CJ for the 2015-2016 school year as reported on page 91 of the IM status report submitted to the Court on November 7, 2016.
D. TARGETED MONITORING ACTIVITIES FOR THE FALL 2016 SEMESTER OF THE 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR
Overview of Targeted Monitoring Activities for the Fall 2016 Semester The CJ requires that the LDOE engage in specific monitoring activities for LEAs selected
for targeted monitoring annually. As such, the IMs report the activities and decisions made by the LDOE as related to the required monitoring activities for schools identified for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 school term for each relevant provision of the CJ. However, an overview of the monitoring procedures used by the LDOE is provided here to assist readers in understanding the process that was used to complete targeted monitoring as required by the CJ. Additional information is also included in each relevant section of the status report. School selection for each area of targeted monitoring was completed by LDOE monitoring personnel using calculation rates outlined in Addendum A of the CJ (p. 1 for Child Find, p. 3 for Related Services, p. 4 for Discipline, p. 6 for Enrollment Stability) in August 2016. Each LEA selected for targeted monitoring from an analysis of relevant data (i.e., initial IDEA evaluations, rates of
21

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 22 of 71
related service provisions, discipline outcomes, and enrollment stability rates) for the 2015-2016 school year was sent a notification email from LDOE Director of State-wide Monitoring on September 15, 2016 (see Appendix B for a copy of each email). This notification provided an overview of the requirements for targeted monitoring pursuant to the CJ, the specific areas in which the charter was being monitored, methods of monitoring (e.g., student file selection, staff interviews, student file reviews), LDOE contact personnel, the specific date of interviews with staff, instructions for the on-site monitoring visit, and copies of the staff interview questions and student file review protocols. Planning phone calls were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel on September 21, 2016 with personnel from each LEA to assist the school personnel in understanding the CJ requirements for targeted monitoring and to answer any questions or address any concerns. The protocols along with the relevant IDEA or Bulletin 1508 legal citation are provided in Appendix B for review.
LDOE monitoring personnel submitted the targeted monitoring schedule for the fall 2016 school term to the IMs on October 21, 2016. LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs conducted on-site staff interviews and student file reviews across two weeks during the fall 2016 school term from November 9-17, 2016 using documents required by the CJ (see staff interview questionnaires and student file review protocols in Appendix B). The IMs and LDOE monitoring personnel scored student file review protocols independently during the on-site visits and reconciled any scoring differences during the on-site monitoring visits or during conference calls held on December 5-6, 2016 and December 12, 2016. Based on agreements among all parties during a meeting held on September 22, 2016, compliance determinations for individual students shall be consistent with the 100% compliance standard outlined in the IDEA. That is, during all targeted monitoring activities, any single finding of noncompliance for any specific IDEA
22

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 23 of 71
regulation being assessed for an individual student was judged to reflect noncompliance and required immediate individual corrective action (i.e., student-specific areas of noncompliance outlined in the IDEA Monitoring Summary and individual corrective actions as part of the LEA Corrective Action Plan). Similarly, all parties agreed that systemic noncompliance would be determined when less than 80% of the student sample failed to meet the 100% individual student compliance standard for any IDEA requirement evaluated on the CJ protocol and would result in mandatory systemic corrective actions (i.e., Corrective Action Plan) for the LEA.
The LDOE monitoring personnel completed the monitoring reports for each targeted LEA during the months of December 2016 and January 2017. The IMs reviewed the monitoring reports and provided feedback regarding specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA regulations and student-specific findings of noncompliance during the months of January 2017 and February 2017. In relation, the LDOE monitoring personnel developed the Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) for each LEA during March 2017 and the IMs provided feedback regarding the CAPs on March 15, 2017. The IMs review and feedback focused on ensuring the corrective strategies outlined in the CAPS were reasonably sufficient, presuming adequate levels of implementation fidelity, to lead to overall sustained improvements and compliance for IDEA and/or Bulletin 1508 practices in the areas of Child Find, Related Services, Discipline and Enrollment across targeted LEAs. Specifically, the IMs reviewed all submitted CAPs to ensure that the professional development and technical assistance activities strategically addressed each finding of systemic or student-specific noncompliance. In relation, the IMs evaluated the CAPs to ensure that on-going corrective and supportive feedback would be provided by LDOE monitoring personnel to assist in promoting skill development of faculty in a developmental nature across time. Finally, the IMs reviewed
23

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 24 of 71
the CAPs to ensure that the LEAs would be providing appropriate documentation to assist LDOE monitoring personnel in evaluating both the compliance and quality of their practices in relation to federal and state regulations as well as requirements outlined in the CJ.
The LDOE submitted cover letters, final monitoring reports with recommendations for improvement, specific findings of noncompliance in relation to IDEA violations, and CAP templates to each LEA and the IMs on March 22, 2017. These documents are in Appendix B for review by all parties. Finally, LDOE monitoring personnel held technical assistance meetings or phone calls with the targeted LEAs to review the findings of systemic noncompliance and student-specific noncompliance and discuss the structure and activities of the CAPs on from March 20-23, 2017. These notifications were submitted to the IMs for review on April 20, 2017 and are also located in Appendix B for review by the parties.
The IMs review of compliance with the targeted monitoring provisions of the CJ for the fall semester of the 2016-2017 school year consisted of an evaluation of three components of the LDOE’s monitoring activities. Specifically, the components being assessed for compliance included: (1) Correct identification of the charter schools selected for targeted monitoring (e.g., determination of the annual new identification rate for each LEA, and evaluation of the LDOE calculations); (2) Completion of targeted monitoring activities by the LDOE as required by the CJ and Addendum A to the CJ (e.g., completion of appropriate monitoring activities by the LDOE, completion of staff interviews, appropriate selection of student files, appropriate completion of the monitoring protocols, and correct identification of systemic or individual compliance and/or noncompliance) and (3) Development of appropriate corrective actions “sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur.” (pp. 7, 9, 11, 14 of CJ). As such, the IM status report provides a review of
24

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 25 of 71
these monitoring activities for each LEA selected for targeted monitoring under each area of the CJ (e.g., Child Find, Related Services, Discipline, Enrollment) along with IM determinations regarding compliance with the monitoring provisions of the CJ. An overall summary regarding targeted monitoring activities and professional recommendations are provided at the conclusion of the report in addition to a brief update regarding targeted monitoring activities that occurred during the spring 2017 semester.
A. CHILD FIND 1. Targeted Monitoring Activities for the Child Find Provisions Three schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 school semester based on an analysis of 2015-2016 child find data. The IMs reviewed the documentation and calculations performed by LDOE monitoring personnel and confirmed that the schools were selected for targeted monitoring in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined on page 7 of the CJ and page 1 of Addendum A of the CJ. The schools selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 semester included Joseph S. Clark High School, Mildred Osborne Charter School, and William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy. A review of findings for each school is presented below.
a. Joseph S. Clark High School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 15, 2016. One LDOE representative and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections 4(a) and 4(b) on page 2 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at Joseph S.
25

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 26 of 71
Clark High School clearly articulated their responses regarding the Child Find process and provided satisfactory answers to all interview questions. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B.
A representative sample of thirty-five student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 2(a) on page 1 of Addendum A of the CJ. Specifically, the sample consisted of eight students (23% of the sample) who failed two or more academic subjects the prior year, six students (17% of the sample) who had Section 504 plans, eight students (23% of the sample) who were under consideration by the School Building Level Committee (SBLC), five students (14% of the sample) who were subject to ten or more days of disciplinary removal, and eight students (23% of the sample) who were participating in the Response to Intervention (RTI process). Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 3(a) on page 2 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Child Find protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for Joseph S. Clark High School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Child Find protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that thirty-five of thirty-five student files (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Child Find activities. Specific IDEA, Bulletin 1508 and/or Section 504 systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 24 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 5-13 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B program using Bulletin 1508 (Pupil Appraisal Handbook) in five areas.
26

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 27 of 71
Specifically, eighteen of eighteen applicable student files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the school fully implemented the three tiers of instruction and intervention with measured levels of integrity, used standard protocols and/or problem solving methods, and used an integrated data collection or assessment system to inform decisions about student response to intervention at each tier of instruction or intervention (Bulletin 1508-§301 Response to Intervention; IDEA-§300.306(a)(1) and §300.308). Thirty-five of thirty-five applicable files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the School Building Level Committee (SBLC) consisted of documented, required standing committee members and invited participants who review and analyze all screening data, including RTI results, to determine the most beneficial option for the student (Bulletin 1508-§303 School Building Level Committee). Thirty-two of thirty-three applicable student files (97% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the SBLC coordinated and documented the results of all required screening activities completed by general education personnel with the assistance from other school personnel (Bulletin 1508-§305 Screening Activities). Eighteen of eighteen applicable student files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student be referred to the SBLC for consideration of an initial evaluation within a reasonable amount of time if the student did not maintain expected progress while participating in the RTI process (Bulletin 1508-§307 Referral Process; IDEA-§300.309(c). Finally, six of six applicable Section 504 student files (100% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive specially designed instruction if indicated by the student’s educational records (Section 504-§104.35(b).
27

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 28 of 71
b. Mildred Osborne Charter School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 10, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections 4(a) and 4(b) on page 2 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at Mildred Osborne Charter School clearly articulated their responses regarding the Child Find process and provided satisfactory answers to all interview questions. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B. A representative sample of twenty-five student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 2(a) on page 1 of Addendum A of the CJ. Specifically, the sample consisted of four students (16% of the sample) who had Section 504 plans, thirteen students (52% of the sample) who were participating in the Response to Intervention (RTI process), and eight students (32% of the sample) who were under consideration by the School Building Level Committee (SBLC). Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 3(a) on page 2 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Child Find protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for Mildred Osborne Charter School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Child Find protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that twenty-five of twenty-five student files (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Child Find activities. Specific IDEA, Bulletin 1508 and/or
28

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 29 of 71
Section 504 systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-4 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 5-10 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B program using Bulletin 1508 (Pupil Appraisal Handbook) in five areas. Specifically, eight of twenty-five applicable student files (32% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the school fully implemented the three tiers of instruction and intervention with measured levels of integrity, used standard protocols and/or problem solving methods, and used an integrated data collection or assessment system to inform decisions about student response to intervention at each tier of instruction or intervention (Bulletin 1508-§301 Response to Intervention; IDEA-§300.306(a)(1) and §300.308). Twenty-five of twenty-five applicable files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the School Building Level Committee (SBLC) consisted of documented, required standing committee members and invited participants who review and analyze all screening data, including RTI results, to determine the most beneficial option for the student (Bulletin 1508-§303 School Building Level Committee). Eighteen of twenty-five applicable student files (72% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the SBLC coordinated and documented the results of all required screening activities completed by general education personnel with the assistance from other school personnel (Bulletin 1508-§305 Screening Activities). Eleven of twenty-three applicable student files (48% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student be referred to the SBLC for consideration of an initial evaluation within a reasonable amount of time if the student did not maintain expected progress while
29

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 30 of 71
participating in the RTI process (Bulletin 1508-§307 Referral Process; IDEA-§300.309(c). Finally, four of four applicable Section 504 student files (100% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive specially designed instruction if indicated by the student’s educational records (Section 504-§104.35(b).
c. William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 9, 2016. One LDOE representative and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted on November 9, 2016, as opposed to February 10, 2016 as indicated in the LDOE monitoring report. The interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections 4(a) and 4(b) on page 2 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. A review of the LDOE monitoring report revealed that Faculty at William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy “provided general descriptions of required Student Assistance Team (SAT) collaboration, student referrals, parental involvement, intervention procedures, and evaluation processes” (p. 3). However, the faculty failed to provide a sufficient response regarding how the monitoring process is documented by faulty and school-based teams and a review of student records confirmation this finding. In relation, the monitoring team observed a discrepancy between the procedures described by faculty during the interview and availability of documentation to objectively demonstrate documentation of data-based decision making procedures by school-based team members. Overall, the results of the interview process revealed noncompliance in Child Find in relation to identifying, locating, and evaluating students suspected of having a disability. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4
30

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 31 of 71
of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B. A representative sample of twenty-one student files were reviewed by the LDOE
monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 2(a) on page 1 of Addendum A of the CJ. Specifically, the sample consisted of two students (10% of the sample) who had Section 504 plans, ten students (48% of the sample) who were participating in the Response to Intervention (RTI process), five students (24% of the sample) who were under consideration by the School Building Level Committee (SBLC), one student (5% of the sample) with ten or more days of removal, and three students (14% of the sample) who failed two more academic subjects. Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 3(a) on page 2 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Child Find protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Child Find protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that twenty-one of twenty-one student files (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Child Find activities. Specific IDEA, Bulletin 1508 and/or Section 504 systemic violations are reported on page 5 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-5 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 6-10 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B program using Bulletin 1508 (Pupil Appraisal Handbook) in six areas. Specifically, fifteen of fifteen applicable student files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the school fully implemented the three tiers of instruction and intervention
31

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 32 of 71
with measured levels of integrity, used standard protocols and/or problem solving methods, and used an integrated data collection or assessment system to inform decisions about student response to intervention at each tier of instruction or intervention (Bulletin 1508-§301 Response to Intervention; IDEA-§300.306(a)(1) and §300.308). Twenty-one of twenty-one applicable files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the School Building Level Committee (SBLC) consisted of documented, required standing committee members and invited participants who review and analyze all screening data, including RTI results, to determine the most beneficial option for the student (Bulletin 1508-§303 School Building Level Committee). Sixteen of seventeen applicable student files (94% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the SBLC coordinated and documented the results of all required screening activities completed by general education personnel with the assistance from other school personnel (Bulletin 1508-§305 Screening Activities). Fifteen of fifteen applicable student files (100% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student be referred to the SBLC for consideration of an initial evaluation within a reasonable amount of time if the student did not maintain expected progress while participating in the RTI process (Bulletin 1508-§307 Referral Process; IDEA-§300.309(c). Four of four applicable Section 504 student files (100% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive specially designed instruction if indicated by the student’s educational records (Section 504-§104.35(b). Finally, one of three applicable student files (33% of the sample) was found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA conduct an evaluation for any student who needs or is believed to need special education or related services before taking action with respect to initial placement, draw upon a variety of assessment data, ensure
32

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 33 of 71
that information obtained for all sources is carefully considered and documented, and ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of required persons (Section 504§104.35(a)(c).
2. Corrective Actions to Address Identified Areas of Noncompliance Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified across five areas (e.g., Response to Intervention, School Building Level Committee, Screening Activities, Referral Process, Specially Designed Instruction) for all three charter schools targeted for monitoring during the fall 2016 semester. In addition, systemic noncompliance was also identified regarding evaluation activities for William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy. In relation, common themes regarding student-specific findings of noncompliance included: (a) failure to list the names and titles of the participants that attended school-based meetings, (b) lack of sufficient screening data, (c) failure to provide sufficient descriptions of the research-based interventions used to address student referral concerns, (d) lack of progress monitoring data, (e) failure to document follow-up schoolbased meetings to evaluate student response to intervention, and (f) lack of evidence to document attainment of parental consent for intervention implementation or evaluation. Given the identified systemic and student-specific findings of noncompliance under IDEA, Part B, and Bulletin 1508, all three charter schools (100% of the sample) required a formal CAP. As required by the CJ, the LDOE developed a CAP to address each area of identified systemic noncompliance or student-specific noncompliance listed in the LDOE monitoring report and 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring summary for each LEA. Specifically, the CAP includes sixteen activities of corrective action (e.g., correction of student-specific findings of noncompliance; professional development provided by the LDOE regarding federal and state Child Find requirements and requirements outlined in the PB v White Child Find Written Guidance
33

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 34 of 71
document, Section 504 eligibility requirements, and data-based decision making within the RTI process; appropriate monitoring of students in the RTI process; development of a Child Find log; appropriate referral activities and documentation; appropriate completion and documentation of SBLC activities using LDOE forms; progress monitoring of students in the RTI process and evaluation of data by school-based teams; review of LDOE professional development on Section 504 requirements; school-based training on Section 504 requirements; school-based training of the RTI process across each tier to appropriately address academic and/or behavioral referral concerns). A copy of the CAP for each charter school is in Appendix B for review by the parties. A review of the CAPs by the IMs revealed that the documents include “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” for Joseph S. Clark Preparatory High School, Mildred Osborne Charter School, and William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy as outlined in section IV(A)(3) on page 7 of the CJ.
3. Status of Compliance After participating in the on-site monitoring visits for the charter schools selected for targeted monitoring and reviewing documentation submitted by the LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., monitoring notifications, LDOE monitoring reports, 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summaries, corrective action plans, technical assistance notifications) and discussing the targeted monitoring activities with LDOE legal counsel and monitoring personnel during conference calls and on-site meetings during throughout the fall 2016 semester and spring 2017 semester, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(A)(3)(a-b) and Sections A(1)(a-c) through 5(a) of Addendum A of the CJ for the fall 2016 semester of the 2016-2017 school year. An evaluation of compliance will be made again in the next IM status report which will discuss the follow-up, on-site targeted monitoring activities for charter schools who received
34

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 35 of 71
initial monitoring reviews during the spring 2016 semester. B. RELATED SERVICES 1. Targeted Monitoring Activities for the Enrollment Stability Provisions Three schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 semester
based on an analysis of 2015-2016 enrollment rates for NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter schools and OPSB LEAs. The IMs reviewed the documentation and calculations performed by LDOE monitoring personnel and confirmed that the schools were selected for targeted monitoring in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined on page 8-9 of the CJ and pages 2-3 of Addendum A of the CJ. The schools selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 semester included New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy (NOMMA), International School of Louisiana Charter School, and Joseph S. Clark High School. A review of findings for each school is presented below.
a. New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 17, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections B(4)(a) and B (4)(b) on page 3-4 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy clearly communicated their responses regarding the required IDEA mandates for provision of Related Services and provided satisfactory responses to the interview questions. However, the interview revealed that key special education personnel did not have access to the Special Education Reporting (SER) System, the LDOE managed statewide special education student database from which records and reports
35

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 36 of 71
for students with disabilities can be reviewed. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report.
A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(2)(a) and B(2)(b) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. It should be noted that two students selected for review did not attend New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy during the 2015-2016 school term. As such, these files were omitted from formal review. The sample of eight students reviewed included the following exceptionalities: three students with an exceptionality of Autism, one student with an exceptionality of Emotional Disturbance, two students with an exceptionality of Other Health Impairment, and two students with an exceptionality of Specific Learning Disability. Regarding related services provisions, three students received counseling services and five students received speech/language therapy.
Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(3)(a) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Related Service protocol. Refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Related Service protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that eight of eight student files (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Related Service provisions. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 5 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-3 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 4-8 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA
36

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 37 of 71
under IDEA, Part B in seven areas. Specifically, eight of eight applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in federal legislation (IDEA-§300.17(a.-d.). Eight of eight applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) include measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA-§300.320(a)(2)(i) (A-B). Eight of eight applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the date for beginning of services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA§300.320(7). Six of eight applicable student files (75% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, and a statement of program modifications or supports for school personnel (IDEA-§300.320(a)(4). Seven of eight applicable student files (88% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA-§300.320(a)(1)(i). Four of eight applicable student files (50% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP team
37

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 38 of 71
must include not less than one special education teacher or special education provider of the child (IDEA-§300.321(a)(3). Finally, four of eight applicable student files (50% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on progress will be provided (IDEA-§300.320(a)(3)(i-ii).
b. International School of Louisiana Charter School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 14, 2016. One LDOE representative and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in section B(4)(a) and B(4)(b) of page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report. The primary concern identified during the interview process was related to the LEAs not having a clearly defined process in place for scheduling special education students for related services to prevent missed instructional time. A summary of staff responses in presented on pages 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. A sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(2)(a) and B(2)(b) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. It should be noted here that International School of Louisiana Charter School is a French language-based academic program and does not typically receive enrollment applications from students with low-incidence disabilities as described in section B(2)(a) in Addendum A of the CJ. Therefore, the student sample was selected in accordance with section B(2)(b)(2) on page 3 in Addendum A of the CJ.
38

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 39 of 71
The sample of ten students reviewed included the following exceptionalities: two students with an exceptionality of Autism, one student with an exceptionality of Specific Learning Disability, one student with an exceptionality of Developmentally Delayed, and six students with a primary exceptionality of Language/Speech-Articulation. It should be reported here that in the charter’s 2016-17 IDEA Monitoring Results summary (Appendix B) an error occurred on page one under the “Description of Findings” Section. The second paragraph should have indicated six of ten students (60% of the sample) received language/speech supports to address their primary disability rather than four of ten files (40% of the sample). Related Service provisions at this LEA were limited to Language/Speech Therapy services to address articulation referral concerns.
Targeted file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(3)(a) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Related Service protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for International School of Louisiana Charter School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Related Service protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that nine of ten student files reviewed (90% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Related Service provisions. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 4-5 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-4 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 5-7 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B in three areas. Specifically, nine of ten applicable student files (90% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the
39

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 40 of 71
requirement that the student receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in federal legislation (IDEA-§300.17(a.-d.). Nine of ten applicable student files (90% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA-§300.320(a)(1)(i). Two of six applicable student files (33% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the projected date for beginning services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA--§300.320(a)(3)(-ii). In relation, student-specific areas of noncompliance were identified in three additional areas. One of ten applicable student files (10% of the sample receiving related services) was judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP include measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA§300.320(a)(2)(i) (A-B). Two of ten applicable student files (20% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on the progress the child is making toward meeting annual goals will be provided (IDEA§300.320(a)(B)(3)(i-ii). Finally, two of ten applicable student files (20% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are necessary to measure academic achievement
40

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 41 of 71
and functional performance of the child on state and districtwide assessments (IDEA§300.320(a)(6)(i).
c. Joseph S. Clark Charter School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 14, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections B(4)(a) and B(4)(b) on page 4-5 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at the Joseph S. Clark High School clearly articulated their responses regarding the required IDEA mandates for provision of Related Services and provided satisfactory responses to all interview questions. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report. A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(2)(a) and B(2)(b) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. The sample of ten students reviewed included the following exceptionalities: two students with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Mild, three students with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Moderate, one student with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Severe, three students with an exceptionality of Autism, and one student with an exceptionality of Multiple Disabilities. Related Service provisions reviewed included Adaptive Physical Educations for 6 students, Speech Therapy for nine students, Counseling services for one student and Social Work Services in Schools for one student.
41

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 42 of 71
Targeted file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(3)(a) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Related Service protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for the Joseph S. Clark High School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Related Service protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that ten of ten student files reviewed (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Related Service provisions. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-4 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, studentspecific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 5-11 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B in six areas. Specifically, ten of ten applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in federal legislation (IDEA-§300.17(a.-d.). Eight of ten applicable student files (80% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP include measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA-§300.320(a)(2)(i) (A-B). Eight of ten applicable student files (80% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic
42

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 43 of 71
reports on progress will be provided (IDEA-§300.320(a)(3)(i-ii). Eight of ten applicable student files (80% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP team include not less than one special education teacher or special education provider of the child and not less than one regular education teacher of the child (IDEA-§300.321(a)(2)(3). Nine of ten applicable student files (90% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA§300.320(a)(1)(i). Nine of ten applicable student files (90% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the date for beginning of services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA-§300.320(7).
2. Corrective Actions to Address Identified Areas of Noncompliance Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified in across two areas (i.e., development of measurable and meaningful PLAAFP statements and appropriate documentation of Related Service provisions) for all three charter schools targeted for monitoring in Related Services during the fall 2016 semester. J.S. Clark Preparatory High School also demonstrated additional systemic noncompliance for IDEA mandates in the following areas: (a) demonstrating reasonable attempts to ensure parent participation when parents are unable to attend scheduled IEP meetings, (b) ensuring that all appropriate team members attend IEP meetings, and (c) development of measurable IEP goals and objectives. Additional systemic noncompliance was also demonstrated by International School of Louisiana with the IDEA
43

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 44 of 71
mandate requiring an explanation of nonparticipation with nondisabled peers in the general education curriculum and evidence the LEA ensured that students with disabilities are educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent possible. Finally, additional systemic noncompliance was observed for New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy in the following areas: (a) demonstrating reasonable attempts to ensure parent participation when parents are unable to attend scheduled IEP meetings, (b) ensuring that all appropriate team members attend IEP meetings, (c) development of measurable IEP goals and objectives (d) ensuring that IEP’s Related Services that are reasonably calculated to enable students to attain annual goals and (e) providing an explanation of nonparticipation with nondisabled peers in the general education curriculum and evidence the LEA ensured that students with disabilities are educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent possible.
Given the identified systemic and student-specific findings of noncompliance under IDEA, Part B, all three charter schools (100% of the sample) required a formal CAP. As required by the CJ, the LDOE developed a CAP to address each area of identified systemic noncompliance or student-specific noncompliance listed in the LDOE monitoring reports and 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring summaries for New Orleans Military and Maritime Academy, International School of Louisiana Charter School, and Joseph S. Clark High School. Specifically, the CAPs each include the following nine activities for corrective remedy: (a) immediate correction of all student specific IDEA citations, (b) mandated training for special education staff (sped teachers and related service providers) on writing compliant IEPs, (c) training for related service providers on how to properly document the provision of services to students, (d) ongoing training conducted by LEA in the following areas: IEP writing, provision and documentation of accommodations, documenting special education services and
44

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 45 of 71
progress monitoring of student data, (e) mandated monthly consistency checks to ensure IEP fidelity, (f), mandated monthly consistency checks to ensure related service provider logs are completed with fidelity, (g) mandated completion of LDOE IEP Training Modules with particular focus on Module 2 (Data-Driven Present Levels of Performance) and Module 3 (Measurable Goals), (h) quarterly review of progress reports for SPED students enrolled at the school to ensure special education teachers and related service providers are completing progress reports accurately and (i) ensuring the provision of compensatory education to all students whose files did not include documentation verifying they received related services).
A copy of the CAPs to address areas of noncompliance for Related Service provisions for New Orleans Military Maritime Academy, International School of Louisiana Charter School, and Joseph S. Clark Charter School are in Appendix B for review by the parties. A review of the CAPs by the IMs revealed that the documents include “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” as outlined in section IV(B)(2) on page 8-9 of the CJ.
3. Status of Compliance After participating in the on-site monitoring visits for the charter schools selected for targeted monitoring and reviewing documentation submitted by the LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., monitoring notifications, LDOE monitoring reports, 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summaries, corrective action plans, technical assistance notifications) and discussing the targeted monitoring activities with LDOE legal counsel and monitoring personnel during conference calls and on-site meetings during throughout the fall 2016 semester and spring 2017 semester, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(B)(2)(a-b) of the CJ and Sections B(1)(a-c) through 5(a) of Addendum A of the CJ for the fall semester of the 2016-2017
45

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 46 of 71
school year. An evaluation of compliance will be made again in the next IM status report which will discuss the follow-up targeted monitoring activities for charter schools who received initial monitoring reviews during the spring 2016 semester.
3. DISCIPLINE 1. Targeted Monitoring Activities for the Discipline Provisions Three schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 school semester based on an analysis of 2015-2016 discipline data. The IMs reviewed the documentation and calculations performed by LDOE monitoring personnel and confirmed that the schools were selected for targeted monitoring in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined on page 11 of the CJ and pages 4-5 of Addendum A of the CJ. The schools selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 semester included Arise Academy, G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy, and Eleanor McMain Secondary School (Orleans Parish School Board). A review of findings for each school is presented below. a. Arise Academy The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 9, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections 4(a) and 4(b) on pages 4-5 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at Arise Academy clearly articulated their responses regarding the policies, procedures, and practices related to the provision of tiered behavioral supports and disciplinary actions for students and provided satisfactory answers to all interview questions. In relation, the faculty identified
46

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 47 of 71
areas of concern prior to the on-site monitoring visit and started taking corrective measures to address some of the areas of noncompliance for the 2016-2017 school year. These actions included updating the disciplinary procedures in the Parent Handbook, using more formal data collection procedures to evaluate trends in discipline data and student response to intervention, and providing professional development for faculty regarding special education requirements. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B.
A representative sample of eleven student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 5 (a-b) on page 11 of the CJ and section 2(a-b) on page 5 of Addendum A of the CJ. Specifically, the sample consisted of six students diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance and five students diagnosed with Other Health Impairment. Two of the eleven students (18% of the sample) required a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) as the result of a change in placement. Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 3(a) on page 5 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Discipline protocol. Please refer to pages 4-5 of the LDOE monitoring report for Arise Academy in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Discipline protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that five of eleven student files (45% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding the provision of disciplinary procedures and/or other IDEA requirements. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on page 5 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-3 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student specific findings of noncompliance are listed on page 4 of
47

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 48 of 71
the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B program in five areas. Specifically, two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA, the parent, and relevant IEP team members conduct a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct (IDEA-§300.530E). Two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA notify the parents of the decision to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct on the date of the removal (IDEA-§300.530H). Two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP team conduct an FBA, unless the LEA had conducted an FBA before the behavior that resulted in a change of placement occurred, and implemented a BIP; or if the BIP already has been developed, review and modify the BIP, as necessary, to address the behavior (IDEA§300.530.F.1(i-ii). Two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP consider the use of positive behavior interventions, supports and other strategies for a child whose behavior impedes their learning or the learning of others (IDEA-§530.324(2)(i). Two additional student files (100% of the sample) were judged to reflect noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the projected date for the beginning of services, modification, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA§300.320(7).
48

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 49 of 71
b. G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 10, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections 4(a) and 4(b) on pages 4-5 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy clearly articulated their responses regarding the policies, procedures, and practices related to the provision of tiered behavioral supports and disciplinary actions for students. In relation, the staff provided thorough and detailed answers to all interview questions particularly in the areas of team-based decision making, use of tiered behavioral supports and related initiatives (e.g., restorative practices, relationship building strategies), partnerships with community agencies, various methods of data collection, and use of data to evaluate school-wide and classroom level discipline trends as well as student response to the provision of tiered interventions. One area of concern identified during the interview process was that school personnel did not indicate that parents are provided a copy of the school’s procedural safeguards when parents are notified that a student’s behavior may warrant a change in placement. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 34 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B. A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 5 (a-b) on page 11 of the CJ and section 2(a-b) on page 5 of Addendum A of the CJ. Specifically, the sample consisted of seven students diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance and three students
49

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 50 of 71
diagnosed with Other Health Impairment. Two of the ten students (20% of the sample) required a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) as the result of a change in placement. Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 3(a) on page 5 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Discipline protocol. Please refer to pages 4-5 of the LDOE monitoring report for G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Discipline protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding the provision of disciplinary procedures and/or other IDEA requirements. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-3 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 4-6 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B program in four areas. Specifically, two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA, the parent, and relevant IEP team members conduct a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct (IDEA-§300.530E). Two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA notify the parents of the decision to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct and provide the parents with the
50

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 51 of 71
procedural safeguards notice on the date of the removal (IDEA-§300.530H). Two of two applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP team conduct an FBA, unless the LEA had conducted an FBA before the behavior that resulted in a change of placement occurred, and implemented a BIP; or if the BIP already has been developed, review and modify the BIP, as necessary, to address the behavior (IDEA-§300.530.F.1.(i-ii). Finally, one of two applicable student files (50% of the sample receiving a change in placement) was judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student continue to receive services to enable the student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals and objectives set out in the IEP if the IEP team determines that the behavior was not a manifestation of the student’s disability and the suspension or expulsion was applied (IDEA-§300.530(d).
c. Eleanor McMain Secondary School (Orleans Parish School Board) The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 16, 2016. One LDOE representative and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections 4(a) and 4(b) on pages 4-5 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at Eleanor McMain Secondary School (OPSB) provided a general overview of their SW-PBIS programs (e.g., incentive programs, reinforcers, consequences) as well as methods of collecting and reviewing discipline data. They also reported that their SW-PBIS program was being revised for the 2016-2017 school year and that faculty were receiving additional
51

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 52 of 71
professional development and consultation from the OPSB Office of Exceptional Services regarding the provision of tiered supports within the Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) model. One area of concern identified during the interview process was that parents are not provided a copy of their procedural safeguards on the same date the decision is made for a potential change in placement. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 34 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B.
A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 5(a-b) on page 11 of the CJ and section 2(a-b) on page 5 of Addendum A of the CJ. Specifically, the sample consisted of four students diagnosed with Emotional Disturbance, three students diagnosed with Other Health Impairment, and three students diagnosed with Specific Learning Disability. Four of the ten students (40% of the sample) required a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) as the result of a change in placement. Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section 3(a) on page 5 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Discipline protocol. Please refer to pages 4-5 of the LDOE monitoring report for Arise Academy in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Discipline protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that four of four applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding the provision of disciplinary procedures and/or other IDEA requirements. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on page 5 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-3 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 4-5
52

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 53 of 71
of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B program in four areas. Specifically, three of four applicable student files (75% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA, the parent, and relevant IEP team members conduct a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct (IDEA-§300.530E). Four of four applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA notify the parents of the decision to make a removal that constitutes a change of placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of the code of conduct on the date of the removal (IDEA-§300.530H). Four of four applicable student files (100% of the sample experiencing a change in placement) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP team conduct an FBA, unless the LEA had conducted an FBA before the behavior that resulted in a change of placement occurred, and implemented a BIP; or if the BIP already has been developed, review and modify the BIP, as necessary, to address the behavior (IDEA§300.530.F.1(i-ii). Four of four applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving a change in placement) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP consider the use of positive behavior interventions, supports and other strategies for a child whose behavior impedes their learning or the learning of others (IDEA-§530.324(2)(i).
2. Corrective Actions to Address Identified Areas of Noncompliance Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified across three common areas (e.g., Manifestation Determination Reviews, Notification and Provision of Procedural Safeguards, development of a Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan or revision of
53

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 54 of 71
the BIP) for all three charter schools targeted for monitoring during the fall semester. In relation, failure to consider the use of positive behavior interventions, supports, and other strategies as part of the development, review and revision of the IEP was identified for Arise Academy and Eleanor McMain Secondary School (OPSB). Systemic concerns were also identified at Arise Academy in relation to inclusion of the projected date for beginning of services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location and duration of services as part of the definition of an IEP. Systemic concerns were also identified at G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy regarding the continued provision of services to enable the student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum, although in another setting, and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the student’s IEP. Given the identified systemic and student-specific findings of noncompliance under IDEA, Part B, all three charter schools (100% of the sample) required a formal CAP. As required by the CJ, the LDOE developed a CAP to address each area of identified systemic noncompliance and student-specific noncompliance listed in the LDOE monitoring report and 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring summary for each LEA. Specifically, the CAP for all three charter schools includes eight activities of corrective action (e.g., correction of student-specific findings of noncompliance; provision of professional development on the completion of FBAs; provision of professional development on the completion of BIPs, progress monitoring methods, and graphing of student data; professional development on the MDR process and MDR checklist provided by the LDOE; internal monitoring of FBAs and BIPs using the checklists provided by the LDOE; internal monitoring of MDRs using the LDOE checklist; development of formal, written procedures regarding FBAs, BIPs, MDRs, and evaluation of student data and fidelity; monthly tracking of students with suspensions or expulsions). In addition, the CAPs for Arise Academy and G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy have an additional
54

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 55 of 71
activity to address student-specific findings of noncompliance (e.g., provision of compensatory education to student with more than 10 days who did not receive educational services and/or to students who did not receive related services per the time and frequency listed on the IEP). A copy of the CAP for each charter school is in Appendix B for review by the parties. A review of the CAPs by the IMs revealed that the documents include “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” for Arise Academy, G.W. Carver Collegiate Academy, and Eleanor McMain Secondary School (OPSB) as outlined in section IV(C)(5) on page 11 of the CJ.
3. Status of Compliance After participating in the on-site monitoring visits for the charter schools selected for targeted monitoring and reviewing documentation submitted by the LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., monitoring notifications, LDOE monitoring reports, 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summaries, corrective action plans, technical assistance notifications) and discussing the targeted monitoring activities with LDOE legal counsel and monitoring personnel during conference calls and on-site meetings during throughout the fall 2016 semester and spring 2017 semester, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(C)(5)(a-b) and Sections C(1)(a-c) through 5(a) of Addendum A of the CJ for the fall 2016 semester of the 2016-2017 school year. An evaluation of compliance will be made again in the next IM status report which will discuss the follow-up targeted monitoring activities for charter schools who received initial monitoring reviews during the spring 2016 semester. D. ENROLLMENT 1. Targeted Monitoring Activities for the Enrollment Stability Provisions Three schools were selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 semester based on an analysis of 2015-2016 enrollment rates for NOLA Type 2 and Type 5 Charter
55

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 56 of 71
schools and OPSB LEAs. The IMs reviewed the documentation and calculations performed by LDOE monitoring personnel and confirmed that the schools were selected for targeted monitoring in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined on page 14-15 of the CJ and page 6 of Addendum A of the CJ. The schools selected for targeted monitoring during the fall 2016 semester included McDonogh 42 Charter School, Sophie B. Wright Charter School, and the NET Charter School. A review of findings for each school is presented below.
a. McDonogh 42 Charter School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 17, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections B(4)(a) and B(4)(b) on pages 3-4 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at McDonogh 42 Charter School clearly articulated their responses regarding the required IDEA mandates for provision of Related Services and provided satisfactory responses to all interview questions. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B. A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(2)(a) on and B(2)(b) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. It should be noted here that one student selected for review did not attend McDonogh 42 Charter School during the 2015-2016 school term. As such, data gathered from this student’s file was omitted when making determinations regarding the LEAs compliance with IDEA Related Service provision mandates. However,
56

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 57 of 71
when student-specific noncompliance was observed, immediate corrective remedies were mandated. The sample of students reviewed included the following exceptionalities: two students with an exceptionality of Autism, one student with an exceptionality of Developmental Delay, three students with an exceptionality of Emotional Disturbance, one student with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability, one student with an exceptionality of Other Health Impairment, one student with an exceptionality of Orthopedic Impairment and one student with an exceptionality of Specific Learning Disability. A wide range of Related Service provisions were reviewed including Physical Therapy for one student, Counseling services for one student, Social Work Services in Schools for four students, Adaptive Physical Education for three students, Occupational Therapy for three students and Speech/Language Therapy for six students.
Student file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(3)(a) on page 3 of Addendum A and section D(2)(a-c) on page 6 of Addendum A using the required Related Service protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for McDonogh 42 Charter School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Related Service protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that nine of nine applicable student files reviewed (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Related Service provisions. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-5 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 6-10 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B in nine areas. Specifically,
57

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 58 of 71
nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in federal legislation (IDEA-§300.17(a.-d.). Nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA-§300.320(a)(1)(i). Four of nine applicable student files (44% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on progress will be provided (IDEA-§300.320(a)(3)(i-ii). Six of nine applicable student files (67% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the date for beginning of services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA§300.320(7). Five of nine applicable student files (56% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP team must include not less than one special education teacher or special education provider of the child (IDEA-§300.321(a)(3). Four of nine applicable student files (44% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, and a statement of program modifications or supports for school personnel (IDEA-§300.320(a)(4). Nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP include measurable annual goals,
58

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 59 of 71
including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA-§300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B). Two of nine applicable student files (22% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the parents be invited to the IEP meeting (IDEA-§300.322(a). Two of three applicable student files (67% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the LEA documents attempts to ensure parental participation if neither parent was able to attend the IEP meeting (IDEA-§300.322(a) and §300.501(b). Finally, one of nine applicable student files (11% of the sample receiving related services) was found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the parent be included in the IEP team membership (IDEA-§300.321(a)(1).
b. Sophie B. Wright Charter School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 17, 2016. One LDOE representative and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections B4(a) and B4(b) on page 3-4 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report. In general, faculty at Sophie B. Wright Charter School clearly articulated their responses regarding the required IDEA mandates for provision of Related Services and provided satisfactory responses to many interview questions. However, school staff did not clearly articulate the LEAs process used for determining whether a student may initially require Related Services to
59

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 60 of 71
ensure satisfactory progress in school (e.g., referral concerns, academic, medical, attendance or behavioral data, parental concerns). A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE monitoring report located in Appendix B.
A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(2)(a) and B(2)(b) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. It should be noted here that one student selected for review did not attend Sophie B. Wright Charter School during the 2015-2016 school year. As such, data gathered from this student’s file was omitted when making determinations regarding the LEAs compliance with IDEA Related Service provision mandates. However, when student-specific noncompliance was observed, immediate corrective remedies were mandated.
The sample of ten students reviewed included the following exceptionalities: one student with an exceptionality of Autism, one student with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Mild, one student with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Moderate, four students with an exceptionality of Other Health Impairment, one student with an exceptionality of Specific Learning Disability and one student with an exceptionality of Visual Impairment. A wide range of Related Service provisions were reviewed including Counseling services for one student, Social Work Services in Schools for one student, Adaptive Physical Education for three students, Occupational Therapy for two students, and Speech/Language Therapy for eight students. Assistive Technology services were also provided for one student.
Targeted file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B3(a) on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ and section D(2)(a-c) on page 6 of Addendum A using the required Related Service
60

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 61 of 71
protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for Sophie B. Wright Charter School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Related Services protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that nine of nine student files reviewed (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Related Service provisions. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-4 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 5-10 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B in seven areas. Specifically, nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in federal legislation (IDEA-§300.17(a.-d.). Five of nine applicable student files (56% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP team include not less than one special education teacher or special education provider of the child (IDEA-§300.321(a)(3). Nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA-§300.320(a)(1)(i). Six of nine applicable student files (67% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP include measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to be involved
61

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 62 of 71
in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA-§300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B). Three of nine applicable student files (33% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, and a statement of program modifications or supports for school personnel (IDEA-§300.320(a)(4). Five of eight applicable student files (63% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the date for beginning of services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA-§300.320(7). Finally, five of nine applicable student files (56% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on progress will be provided (IDEA-§300.320(a)(3)(i-ii).
c. The NET Charter School The on-site targeted monitoring visit occurred on November 16, 2016. Two LDOE representatives and two IMs were present during the entire on-site visit to conduct staff interviews and review student files. The staff interviews were conducted using a standard bank of questions with staff members consistent with requirements outlined in sections B(4)(a) and B(4)(b) on pages 3-4 of Addendum A of the CJ. The specific staff members who participated in the interview process are reported on page 3 of the LDOE monitoring report. Faculty at the NET Charter School clearly articulated their responses regarding the required IDEA mandates for provision of Related Services and provided satisfactory responses to all interview questions. A detailed summary of staff responses is presented on pages 3-4 of the LDOE
62

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 63 of 71
monitoring report located in Appendix B. A representative sample of ten student files were reviewed by the LDOE monitoring
personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(2)(a) and B(2)b on page 3 of Addendum A of the CJ. It should be noted here that the NET Charter School primarily serves students who have previously dropped out of school and/or who have been expelled from other LEAs as the result of behavioral concerns. As such, this LEA does not typically receive enrollment applications from students with low-incidence disabilities as described in section B(2)(a) in Addendum A of the CJ. Therefore, the student sample was selected in accordance with section 2(b)(2) in Addendum A. It should also be reported here that one student selected for review did not attend the NET Charter School during the 20152016 school year. As such, data gathered from this student’s file was omitted when making determinations regarding the LEAs compliance with IDEA Related Service provision mandates. However, when student-specific noncompliance was observed, immediate corrective remedies were mandated. The sample of ten students reviewed included the following exceptionalities: one student with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Mild, one student with an exceptionality of Intellectual Disability-Moderate, three students with an exceptionality of Other Health Impairment, two students with an exceptionality of Emotional Disturbance and three students with an exceptionality of Specific Learning Disability. Related Service provisions reviewed included Counseling services for eight students and Speech/Language Therapy for five students.
Targeted file reviews were conducted by LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs in a manner consistent with the requirements outlined in section B(3)(a) on page 3 of Addendum A and section D(2)(a-c) on page 6 of Addendum A of the CJ using the required Related Service
63

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 64 of 71
protocol. Please refer to page 4 of the LDOE monitoring report for the NET Charter School in Appendix B for a list of items that were reviewed to complete the Related Service protocol for the sample of students. A review of student records revealed that nine of nine applicable student files reviewed (100% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance regarding Related Service provisions. Specific IDEA systemic violations are reported on pages 5-6 of the LDOE monitoring report and pages 2-5 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary located in Appendix B. In relation, student-specific findings of noncompliance are listed on pages 6-9 of the 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summary. Overall, systemic noncompliance was identified for this LEA under IDEA, Part B in six areas and studentspecific noncompliance was identified in two areas. Specifically, nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student receive a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) as outlined in federal legislation (IDEA-§300.17(a.-d.). One of one student applicable student files (100% of the relevant sample) was judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of informing the child of his or her rights and the rights being transferred on the age of majority at least one year before the child reaches the age of majority (IDEA-§300.320(7)(c). Two of nine applicable student files (22% of the sample) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP team must include not less than one special education teacher or special education provider of the child (IDEA-§300.321(a)(3). Nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the student’s IEP include measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the child’s needs that result from the child’s disability to enable the child to
64

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 65 of 71
be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the child’s other educational needs that result from the child’s disability (IDEA§300.320(a)(2)(i)(A-B). Nine of nine applicable student files (100% of the sample receiving related services) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a statement of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum (IDEA-§300.320(a)(1)(i). Three of nine applicable student files (33% of the sample receiving related services) were found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include the date for beginning of services, modifications, and anticipated frequency, location, and duration of services and modifications (IDEA§300.320(7). Finally, two student-specific findings of noncompliance were also addressed in the LDOE monitoring report. Specifically, one of nine applicable student files (11% of the sample receiving related services) was found to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP team include the parents of the child (IDEA-§300.321(a)(1). One of nine applicable student files (11% of the sample) were judged to be in noncompliance with the requirement that the IEP include a description of how the child’s progress toward meeting the annual goals will be measured and when periodic reports on progress will be provided (IDEA§300.320(a)(3)(i-ii).
2. Corrective Actions to Address Identified Areas of Noncompliance Overall, systemic noncompliance for IDEA mandates was identified across the following areas: (a) ensuring that appropriate IEP team members attend IEP meetings, (b) writing measurable and meaningful PLAAFP statements, (c) writing measurable and meaningful goals and objectives, (d) providing an explanation of nonparticipation with
65

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 66 of 71
nondisabled peers in the general education curriculum and evidence the LEA ensured that students with disabilities are educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent possible, and (e) appropriate documentation of Related Service provisions for all three charter schools targeted for monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability during the fall 2016 semester. Additional systemic noncompliance was also identified for McDonogh 42 Charter School and the NET Charter School in relation to (a) appropriately describing in the student’s IEP how progress toward annual goals will be measured and (b) consistently providing parents with regular progress reports. Finally, McDonogh 42 Charter School also demonstrated additional systemic noncompliance for mandated IDEA Related Service provisions relative to ensuring that parents are consistently invited to all IEP meetings and/or appropriately documenting reasonable attempts to ensure parental participation when parents were unable to attend scheduled IEP meetings.
Given the identified systemic and student-specific findings of noncompliance under IDEA, Part B, all three charter schools (100% of the sample) required a formal CAP. As required by the CJ, the LDOE developed a CAP to address each area of identified systemic noncompliance or student-specific noncompliance listed in the LDOE monitoring reports and 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring summaries for McDonogh 42 Charter School, Sophie B. Wright Charter School, and the NET Charter School. Specifically, the CAPs each include the following nine activities of corrective action: (a) immediate correction of all student specific IDEA citations, (b) mandated training for special education staff (sped teachers and related service providers) on writing compliant IEPs, (c) training for related service providers on how to properly document the provision of services to students, (d) ongoing training conducted by LEA in the following areas: IEP writing, provision and documentation of accommodations,
66

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 67 of 71
documenting special education services and progress monitoring of student data, (e) mandated monthly consistency checks to ensure IEP fidelity, (f), mandated monthly consistency checks to ensure related service provider logs are completed with fidelity, (g) mandated completion of LDOE IEP Training Modules with particular focus on Module 2 (Data-Driven Present Levels of Performance) and Module 3 (Measurable Goals), (h) quarterly review of progress reports for SPED students enrolled at the school to ensure special education teachers and related service providers are completing progress reports accurately, and (i) ensuring the provision of compensatory education to all students whose files did not include documentation verifying they received related services.
A copy of the CAPs to address areas of noncompliance for Related Service provisions for McDonogh 42 Charter School, Sophie B. Wright and the NET Charter School are in Appendix B for review by the parties. A review of the CAPs by the IMs revealed that the documents include “corrective actions sufficient to remedy the noncompliance and to reasonably ensure that such noncompliance does not reoccur” as outlined in section IV(D)(7) on page 14 of the CJ.
3. Status of Compliance After participating in the on-site monitoring visits for the charter schools selected for targeted monitoring and reviewing documentation submitted by the LDOE monitoring personnel (e.g., monitoring notifications, LDOE monitoring reports, 2016-2017 IDEA monitoring results summaries, corrective action plans, technical assistance notifications) and discussing the targeted monitoring activities with LDOE legal counsel and monitoring personnel during conference calls and on-site meetings during throughout the fall 2016 semester and spring 2017 semester, the LDOE is judged to be in Substantial Compliance with Section IV(D)(7)(a-b) of the CJ and
67

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 68 of 71
Sections D(1)(a-c) and D(2)(a-c) of Addendum A of the CJ for the fall semester of the 20162017 school year. An evaluation of compliance will be made again in the next IM status report which will discuss the follow-up targeted monitoring activities for charter schools who received initial monitoring reviews during the spring 2016 semester. Summary of the Status of Compliance Determinations
Overall, the LDOE was judged to be in Substantial Compliance with ten of twelve (83%) substantive provisions of the CJ regarding the targeted monitoring activities and corrective actions for the 2015-2016 school year. A review of status determinations for the 20152016 school year by the IMs is presented in the Summary of Compliance Status document located in Appendix A.
In relation, the LDOE maintained Substantial Compliance with the aforementioned provisions of the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year which represents first year of the required two consecutive years of maintenance as outlined in Section VIII(2) on page 18 of the CJ. The LDOE achieved Substantial Compliance with twelve of twelve (100%) of the substantive provisions in the CJ for the 2016-2017 school year. Specifically, the LDOE achieved initial Substantial Compliance for Sections IV(A)(3)(b) Targeted Monitoring: Student Sample Selection in the area of Child Find and IV(C)(5)(b) Targeted Monitoring: Student Sample Selection in the area of Discipline during the fall semester of 2016-2017 school year. This represents the initial year of Substantial Compliance for these provisions with the CJ. As such, the LDOE shall be required to maintain compliance for two consecutive school years to meet the requirements outlined in Section VIII(2) on page 18 of the CJ. A review of status determinations for the 2016-2017 school year by the IMs is also presented in the Summary of Compliance Status document located in Appendix A.
68

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 69 of 71
Recommendations for Addressing Areas of Corrective Action for LEAs selected for Targeted Monitoring
The LDOE shall continue to follow the targeted monitoring procedures as outlined in each substantive section of the CJ and on pages 1-12 of Addendum A of the CJ. IMs will continue to review charter school selection and verify LDOE calculations as required by the CJ. The LDOE shall also continue to select LEAs for targeted monitoring and perform staff interviews and student file reviews using the protocols as outlined in the CJ and Addendum A of the CJ during future initial and follow-up on-site visits. In relation, the LDOE shall continue to conduct initial and follow-up on-site targeted monitoring visits collaboratively with the IMs to obtain information from faculty and review student files to make compliance determinations in this area of the CJ. LDOE monitoring personnel shall provide relevant, ongoing technical assistance and professional development to ensure that the LEAs are able to engage in the activities listed on the CAPs with adequate levels of fidelity to correct the identified areas of systemic and student-specific noncompliance. If LDOE monitoring personnel identify a pattern of noncompliance for specific Bulletin 1508 requirements, IDEA regulations or Section 504 regulations based on the submission of required documents from the LEAs, then additional strategic professional development provided directly by LDOE monitoring personnel or other approved service providers (e.g., LSU Health Sciences Center TIERS Group) beyond the professional development or technical assistance delineated in each CAP should be provided to school personnel (including contractual service providers) to address the identified areas of concern. In relation, all training materials used by each LEA or approved contracted professionals to provide professional development to staff members on topics identified in the CAPs shall be approved by the LDOE prior to delivery of the training. Furthermore, training on targeted topics outlined in the CAPs may be required on multiple occasions throughout the
69

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 70 of 71
school year to address potential concerns with faculty attrition and turnover. Additionally, LDOE monitoring personnel may find it necessary to provide corrective feedback and technical assistance more frequently than the timelines outlined in the CAPs to some LEAs based on formative review of their practices and submitted documentation. Finally, LDOE monitoring personnel shall continue to review the CAPs for the LEAs selected for targeted monitoring at the designated times outlined on these documents and provide regular updates to the IMs regarding each LEAs status in complying with the CAPs. It is recommended that the LDOE provide the IMs with written updates quarterly each school year so an evaluation of the status of compliance with the CAPs can be conducted in a formative manner for these LEAs prior to the formal, follow-up onsite monitoring visits performed during the upcoming 2017-2018 school year. Additional Targeted Monitoring Activities for the 2016-2017 School Year
LDOE monitoring representatives and IMs collaboratively completed follow-up, on-site monitoring visits from February 6-10, 2017 for LEAs initially selected for targeted monitoring last school year during the spring 2016 term. LDOE monitoring personnel and IMs completed monitoring reports during the March 2017, and these reports have been submitted to the LEAs. The IMs received the final LDOE monitoring reports on May 3, 2017 and the intensive corrective action plans (I-CAPs) for the charter schools that continued to demonstrate continued noncompliance based on the completion of staff interviews and student file reviews during the spring 2017 term on May 9, 2017. The IMs also received the email notifications from LDOE monitoring personnel notifying the LEAs of mandatory technical assistance meetings to address the findings from the monitoring reports and to review the activities contained within the ICAPs on May 9, 2017. Given the receipt of these targeted monitoring materials, the IMs will submit a status report documenting the targeted monitoring activities that occurred during the spring 2017
70

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 359-1 Filed 05/25/17 Page 71 of 71 semester to the Parties for review by July 15, 2017. The tentative date for submission of the final IM status report discussing the spring 2017 targeted monitoring activities to the Court is August 15, 2017.
71

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 387 Filed 07/18/18 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CASSANDRA BERRY, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 10-4049

JOHN WHITE, ET AL.

SECTION "A"(4)

ORDER The Consent Judgment entered in this case is at a critical juncture given that fall 2018 is the last initial monitoring cycle absent a legitimate basis to extend it consistent with the terms of the Consent Judgment. The Court is aware that the parties have continued to express concerns and informal objections to the monitors regarding their interpretations of the Consent Judgment in terms of “substantial compliance” determinations, the adequacy of corrective actions for sufficiently remedying noncompliance, and the duration for the achievement and maintenance of substantial compliance. All of these areas impact the criteria for termination of the Consent Judgment under its own terms. The Court will allow the parties to be heard on these issues at the next status conference. But the parties should note that the Court, in consultation with the IM team, has endorsed the IM team’s interpretations in all of these areas. The Consent Judgment itself defines the term “substantial compliance” and it does so not in accordance with an individual LEA’s compliance with the IDEA but rather with the Defendants’ compliance with the Consent Judgment itself. The Court declines the request to allow briefing based
1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 387 Filed 07/18/18 Page 2 of 3
on the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017), because it does not pertain to the systemic claims that were brought against the State in this case. At this time, the Court is persuaded that the IM team has properly tethered its interpretations regarding substantial compliance to the terms of the Consent Judgment itself with due regard to the obligations imposed on the State under the IDEA. The individual LEAs are not parties to either this litigation or the Consent Judgment.
Regarding the exit criteria under § VIII(2) of the Consent Judgment, the Court is inclined to believe that the most reasonable interpretation of that section is that Defendants must first attain substantial compliance and then maintain it for two consecutive years.
At the request of the IM team as detailed in their July 8, 2018 email to the Court, the Court clarifies the following schedule of events pertaining to the two outstanding follow-up monitoring reports. At this time, the IM team anticipates circulating drafts of the two outstanding follow-up monitoring reports by July 25, 2018. The parties will follow the regular two-week comment process as outlined in the Consent Judgment. After the comment period, the IM team will file final versions of the two 2018 follow-up monitoring reports (citing all objections) by August 8, 2018. Once the outstanding reports are filed, the Court will schedule a status conference with the parties and the IM team jointly to address specific objections and concerns.1 Prior to the conference the Court will invite
1 The Court will endeavor to hold the status conference in the month of August but the setting will depend on the availability of counsel for the parties, the IM team, and the Court.
2

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 387 Filed 07/18/18 Page 3 of 3 the parties to submit memoranda explaining the specific topics they wish to discuss at the status conference.
July 17, 2018 JAY C. ZAINEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 388 Filed 08/13/18 Page 1 of 2

Office of the Independent Monitors P.B., et al., v. John White, et al. (Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049)

Fluency Plus, LLC 215 N. Bolivar Ave Cleveland, MS 38732 www.fluencyplus.com fluencyplusinfo@gmail.com
(662) 843-2322

TO:

Joan Hunt, Chris Fruge, Willa LeBlanc, Maree Sneed

Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE)

Wayne Stewart Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB)

Adriana Luciano, Jasmine Bolton, Jim Comstock-Galagan, Zoe Savitsky Counsel for Plaintiff Class

FROM:

Dale Bailey, Tony Doggett, Ken Swindol, William Swindol Independent Monitors

DATE:

August 9, 2018

RE:

IM Status Report dated August 9, 2018

Please find the Independent Monitor Status Report dated August 9, 2018 attached for your review. Following a brief introduction, the report is organized into two major sections. First, the IMs provide an executive summary of the status of compliance for the targeted monitoring activities and corrective actions for the LEAs requiring targeted, onsite follow-up monitoring visits during the spring 2018 school term of the 2017-2018 school year from March 1-13, 2018. Specifically, this included twelve schools requiring corrective action plans (CAPs) and six schools requiring intensive corrective action plans (ICAPs) during the 2017-2018 school year. Second, the IMs provide recommendations for addressing continued compliance with the provisions of the CJ. In relation, there are three appendices attached to the IM status report including: a) summary of substantial compliance status across areas of the CJ from the 2015-2016 school year through the 2017-2018 school year.; b) monitoring documents received from the LDOE for the schools identified for targeted, onsite follow-up monitoring visits as a result of requiring a CAP during the 2017-2018 school year and related monitoring comparison tables; and c) monitoring documents received from the LDOE for the schools identified for targeted, onsite follow-up monitoring visits as a result of requiring an ICAP during the 2017-2018 school year and related monitoring comparison tables.

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 388 Filed 08/13/18 Page 2 of 2
We again want to express our sincere appreciation to the Parties for their assistance in providing materials and information needed to complete the current IM Status Report dated August 9, 2018. We also wish to acknowledge representatives of the LDOE, OPSB, and Counsel for the Plaintiffs for their complete collaboration in responding to requests for information and cooperation during scheduled phone conferences and on-site meetings during the 2017-2018 school year.

 
 Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 1 of 15

Office of the Independent Monitors P.B., et al., v. John White, et al. (Civil Case No. 2:10-cv-04049)
Fluency Plus, LLC 215 N. Bolivar Ave Cleveland, MS 38732 www.fluencyplus.com fluencyplusinfo@gmail.com
(662) 843-2322

TO: Angela Randle, Director of Special Education Programs Chris Fruge and Joan Hunt, Legal Counsel Louisiana Department of Education
Wayne Stewart Legal Counsel, Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB)

Neil Ranu, Victor Jones, Jasmine Bolton and Zoe Savitsky Legal Counsel for Plaintiff Class

Cc:

Pam Starns

Career Law Clerk to the Honorable Jay C. Zainey

FROM: Dale Bailey, Ken Swindol, William Swindol Independent Monitors

DATE: September 10, 2019

RE:

Summary of findings for IM concerns related to OPSB/NOLA charter schools selected

for targeted monitoring under the PB v White Consent Judgement for the fall, 2017

and fall 2018 monitoring cycles.

1

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 2 of 15
Background
On May 21, 2019, the IMs received an email correspondence from Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) legal counsel requesting information utilized by the LDOE for selecting NOLA/OPSB charter schools for targeted monitoring during the fall, 2017 and fall, 2018 monitoring cycles. Specifically, SPLC counsel requested the following information:
1. The rates at which each LEA in NOLA identified new students eligible for services under the IDEA and the student data used to calculate these rates as outlined in the Consent Judgement (CJ) and in Addendum A of the CJ.
2. The rates at which each LEA in NOLA provided related services to students eligible for such services under the IDEA and the student data used to calculate the rates as outlined in the CJ and Addendum A of the CJ.
3. The rates at which each LEA in NOLA removed students with disabilities for disciplinary purposes for more than ten (10) cumulative days in an academic year and the student data used to calculate these rates as outlined in the CJ and the Addendum of the CJ.
4. The rate at which students with disabilities chose not to re-enroll at each LEA in NOLA each school year and the student data used to calculate these rates as outlined in the CJ and the Addendum of the CJ.
Upon conferring with LDOE legal counsel regarding the abovementioned request, the IMs directed SPLC counsel, per LDOE data-sharing regulations, to file a formal public records request directly with LDOE legal counsel.
In the meantime, to be prepared to respond to any questions posed by the Plaintiff’s counsel in a timely manner, the IMs conducted a review of the school selection databases from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 and to also gather information related to potential quantifiable data trends for (a) new IDEA identification rates, (b) related service provisions (i.e. average number of minutes per week/per pupil), (c) discipline removal rates (i.e. greater than ten (10) days of exclusionary discipline removals) and (d) Enrollment Stability rates (i.e. rates of students choosing to not reenroll) across all NOLA/OPSB charter school sites from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018.
During our initial review, the IMs observed potential data errors on the 2017-2018 LDOE database from which NOLA/OPSB schools were selected for targeted monitoring that would have, if confirmed, likely resulted in charter school(s) being incorrectly selected for
2

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 3 of 15
targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services in fall, 2018. Once these potential school selection errors were observed, the IMs contacted Dr. Chauncey McElwee, LDOE Coordinator of PB v White Consent Judgement (CJ) Monitoring, via phone on June 4, 2019, to discuss our initial concerns. After a brief conversation regarding this matter, Dr. McElwee indicated that she would contact Angela Randall, LDOE Director of Special Education Programs and members of the LDOE Data Team to discuss our initial concerns. The IMs were then informed on June 10, 2019 that Mrs. Randall reported that the several key data-team members were at a conference and that she would discuss the IMs concerns with the data-team members when they returned.
In the meantime, the IMs conducted a comprehensive review of all LDOE databases from which NOLA/OPSB charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring for the fall, 2017 and fall, 2018 school terms and discovered additional potential data errors that, if confirmed, would have also resulted in incorrect selections for NOLA/OPSB charter schools required to undergo targeted monitoring in the areas of Child Find, Related Services, and Enrollment Stability.
On June 18, 2019, the IMs received an email correspondence from Angela Randall, LDOE Director of Special Education Programs, indicating that LDOE staff were ready to discuss our initial concerns related to potential data errors and NOLA/OPSB school sites potentially being incorrectly selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2018 school term.
As such, the IMs and LDOE monitoring staff and legal counsel held a conference call on June 20, 2019 to further discuss our initial concerns, as well as, the additional potential data errors observed by the IMs which, if confirmed, would have likely resulted in subsequent errors in the process of selecting schools for targeted monitoring as specified in Addendum A of the CJ.
During the June 20, 2019 conference call, LDOE staff confirmed the IMs initial data error/school selection inquiry reported to the LDOE on June 4, 2019 (i.e. related service minutes calculated using total student enrollment rather than IDEA enrollment). LDOE staff indicated the LDOE monitoring staff and the LDOE data team staff would review and immediately correct any errors in the database, identify NOLA/OPSB charter school(s) that were selected in error, identify the charter schools that should have been initially selected for monitoring in Fall, 2018 and conduct additional on-site targeted monitoring for these charter school sites in the fall, 2019 school term. During the June 20, 2019 phone conference, the IMs also reported to LDOE staff and Legal counsel that, after a thorough review of the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 LDOE school selection datasets, other potential selection errors were observed for fall, 2017 targeted monitoring selections in the areas of Child Find, Related Services and Enrollment Stability.
3

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 4 of 15
After a brief discussion regarding the additional potential school selection errors, LDOE staff requested, based on the complex nature of the IMs additional inquiries, that the IMs summarize all additional school selection concerns in writing so that LDOE data department could be consulted to further investigate the IMs specific concerns. As such, the IMs submitted a summary overview of their inquiries related to numerous potential school selection errors to all parties, via email, on June 25, 2019. The LDOE monitoring/data team staff conducted a review of concerns submitted by the IMs and provided initial, as well as, follow-up responses to the IMs, via email and/or phone conference, from July 11, 2019 to September 6, 2019.
After a thorough review of all school selection data and numerous communications with LDOE staff via email and phone conferences, the IMs provide below a summary of each identified concern discovered during our data and school selection inquiry along with any related recommendations for corrective remedies.
Observed Concern 1. 2017-2018 LDOE school selection database for Related Service Minutes contained enrollment figures for the total school population rather than the IDEA student counts across all OPSB/NOLA school sites.
During a review of the LDOE database titled “2017-2018 Related Service Minutes Provided to Eligible Students under the IDEA OPSB & New Orleans Parish”, the IMs observed that the database appeared to reflect the enrollment figures for total school enrollment rather than enrollment counts solely for students with disabilities across all NOLA and OPSB schools. The IMs reported this potential error to LDOE staff and legal counsel and further indicated that if these enrollment figures were, in fact, incorrect the schools selected for fall 2018 targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services would be invalid.
After a brief phone conference, LDOE personnel indicated that an oversight did, in fact, occur and the total student enrollment counts rather than enrollment figures for students with disabilities was used to calculate the metric from which schools were selected for monitoring. Further, the LDOE reported all enrollment figures would be corrected and the data would be recalculated to identify the schools that should have been selected for Related Services monitoring in the fall of 2018.
LDOE legal counsel submitted an updated (corrected) database on June, 24, 2019 for the IMs review. Based on a review of the updated LDOE 2017-2018 Related Services database and follow-up communications with LDOE staff, the IMs confirmed that two charter schools (Robert Moton Charter School and Lusher Charter School) were incorrectly chosen for targeted monitoring during the Fall, 2018 targeted monitoring cycle.
4

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 5 of 15

Recommended Corrective Remedies

The LDOE and IMs each reviewed the updated rankings on the “2017-2018 Related Service Minutes Provided to Eligible Students under the IDEA OPSB & New Orleans Parish” database and collaborated to identify the NOLA/OPSB charter schools that should have been selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2018 monitoring cycle. Based on our review, the LDOE staff and IMs agreed that New Orleans Charter Science and Mathematics High School and International High School of New Orleans reported the lowest related service (i.e. average minutes per week/per pupil) provision rates during the 2017-2018 school term and should have been selected for on-site targeted monitoring in the Fall, 2018. However, given the fact that International High School had recently been monitored in the area of Related Services in Spring, 2018, the IMs and LDOE staff agreed to select ReNew Accelerated Academy, the OPSB/NOLA charter school reporting the next lowest ranking of related service provisions during the 2017-2018 school term. The table below summarized the NOLA/OPSB charter schools that were incorrectly chosen and the charter schools that should have been selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2018 monitoring cycle.

Charter schools monitored in the area of Related Services during Fall, 2018 Edna Karr High Robert Moton Lusher Charter School

Charter schools that should have been monitored in the in Fall, 2018
Edna Karr High (correctly selected after data correction) New Orleans Charter Science & Mathematics High School ReNew Accelerated High School

As a remedy to address this situation, the LDOE proposed that the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs conduct additional on-site targeted monitoring reviews for the abovementioned NOLA/OPSB charter schools during September, 2019. As such, the LDOE submitted official notifications to school leaders for New Orleans Charter Science and Mathematics High School and ReNew Accelerated High School on August 22, 2019 of a mandated on-site monitoring visit during the week of September 23-27, 2019.

In addition, to proactively address the concerns described above, the IMs recommended that LDOE monitoring staff collaborate with the LDOE data team to develop a protocol for verifying that all datasets used for future selections of NOLA/OPSB charter schools under the provisions of the CJ include additional safeguards to ensure all data metrics (i.e. enrollment figures, sorting/rankings) are appropriate and correct. After briefly discussing this matter, LDOE monitoring staff agreed with this IM recommendation.
5

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 6 of 15
As a final remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, prior to any school selections, LDOE staff and the IMs have agreed to collectively reviewing all relevant annual school selection datasets for potential concerns. Secondly, the LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Related Services) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services as outlined in the CJ Addendum.
Please note that LDOE staff and IMs have previously collaborated to review and agree on school selections prior to conducting targeted monitoring visits. However, for the fall, 2017 monitoring cycle, the IMs were not provided with any of the school selection databases for the fall, 2017 monitoring cycle until the morning of December 4, 2017, the first day of targeted monitoring for that cycle. As such, a member of the IM team did conduct a very brief cursory review of the school selection database and, unfortunately, did not recognize the school selection errors at that time.
Observed Concern 2. The incorrect Einstein Charter School was monitored in the area of Enrollment Stability during the Fall, 2017 targeted monitoring cycle
The IMs review of the school selection database titled “Rates at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 2015-2016 to Oct. 1, 2016: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish” indicated that Einstein Charter School at Village De L’Est was selected for targeted monitoring in the fall of the 2017-2018 school term as a result of enrollment stability concerns (42.1% rate of students choosing not to reenroll). However, based on the IMs review of schools actually monitored in Fall, 2017 in the area of Related Services indicated the Einstein charter school site that was actually monitored (on-site) was Einstein Charter Middle School at Sara Towles Reed.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
After inquiring about this concern, LDOE staff indicated this was an inadvertent error and agreed that Einstein Charter School at Village De L’Est, rather than Einstein Charter Middle School at Sara Towles Reed, should have undergone targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability during the fall, 2017 school term. As such, the LDOE submitted official notification letters to Einstein Charter School at Village De L’Est school leaders on August 22, 2019 informing them of an upcoming, mandatory on-site monitoring visit during the week of September 24-27, 2019.
6

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 7 of 15
As an additional remedy for addressing the above mentioned concern, LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Enrollment Stability) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference), prior to monitoring, on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability as outlined in the CJ Addendum.
Observed Concern 3. Inaccurate enrollment figures for Audubon Charter School and ReNew McDonogh City Park Academy; Audubon Charter School incorrectly chosen for targeted monitoring during fall, 2018.
Based on the IMs review of the data set provided by the LDOE titled “Rates at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 2016-2017 to Oct. 1, 2017: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish”, Audubon Charter School (LEA/Site Code-036005) was listed as having a total of only one (1) student with a disability who was enrolled on October 1, 2017. Further, when considering that a reported 17 students did not reenroll as of October 1, 2017, this resulted in a very unusual and highly elevated (1700%) non-reenrollment rate for the 20172018 school term. Further, a review of the 2015-2016 student data base (see LDOE database titled “Rates at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 20152016 to Oct. 1, 2016: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish”) indicates that Audubon Charter School had a total of 72 students enrolled with an IEP as of the October 1, 2016 Public IDEA Student Count. As such, the IMs reported a concern to the LDOE suggesting that it appeared very unlikely that Audubon Charter School had only one student with a disability as of the October 1, 2017 Pubic IDEA Student Count.
After further investigation, the LDOE responded to the IMs indicating that school site code changes were noted during the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018. As such, only one student remained documented as enrolled at Audubon under their old or prior year site code 036005, thus resulting in a 1700% rate of students choosing not to re-enroll. The additional students were accounted for under Audubon’s new site code (WAZ001). LDOE staff acknowledged this error and agreed that Audubon Charter School was incorrectly chosen to undergo on-site monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability based on an inaccurate non-enrollment rate.
An additional concern was reported to the LDOE regarding the unusual discrepancy observed for the Renew McDonogh City Park Academy October 2016 IEP count and students choosing not to re-enroll for the 2017 school term. More specifically, this charter school site reported a total student count of 209 students with disabilities (October 1, 2016). However, the number of students with disabilities who were reported as not re-enrolling as of October 2017 was 308.
7

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 8 of 15

The LDOE submitted a response to the IMs indicating that ReNew McDonogh City Park Academy was a school closure. Therefore, since this charter school closed and no students were recorded as enrolled, this resulted in an unusually high rate of students choosing to not reenroll in the fall, 2017 school term. Further, in relation to the observation that more students chose to not re-enroll in 2017 than were actually enrolled as of October 1, 2016, LDOE staff noted that between Oct 1, 2016 and the end of the 2016-2017 school term McDonogh City Park Academy enrolled an additional 100+ preschool students with disabilities, thus explaining the enrollment discrepancy.

Recommended Corrective Remedies

LDOE staff and the IMs reviewed the enrollment database (i.e. “Rates at Which Students with Disabilities (SWD) Chose Not to Reenroll Between 2016-2017 to Oct. 1, 2017: OPSB & Charter Schools in Orleans Parish”) to determine which NOLA/OPSB charter school, rather than Audubon Charter, should have been chosen for on-site targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability. The table below summarizes the NOLA/OPSB charter school sites reporting the highest rankings for students choosing to not-enroll from 2016-2017 to October 1, 2017:

OPSB/NOLA Charter School 2017 Non- Re-enrollment rate

Menard Nelson Elementary School
William J. Fischer Accelerated Academy Sylvanie William College Preparatory Charter Robert Russa Moten McDonogh 32 Literacy
Charter School Sophie B. Wright Charter
School Einstein Charter School at
Village De L’Est

63.6% 62.2% 55% 50% 45.9% 45.7% 42.9%

School Status and Reason Not Selected for Targeted Monitoring Appropriately Selected and
Monitored in Fall, 2018 Appropriately Selected and
Monitored in Fall, 2018 School Closure
Monitored in fall, 2018 School Closure
Cleared ICAP-Spring 2019
Already scheduled for onsite monitoring in the area
of enrollment in September, 2019

8

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 9 of 15

Dr. Martin Luther King Charter for
Science/Technology

38.2%

Selected for Targeted Monitoring in the area of
Enrollment Stability in September, 2019

As indicated in the table above, the five NOLA/Charter schools with the highest rates of students choosing not to re-enroll during the 2017-2018 school term were not selected to replace Audubon Charter School due to the following factors: (a) charter school closed, (b) charter was monitored and cleared ICAP in spring 2018 and/or (c) the charter school was previously selected for additional on-site monitoring in September, 2019 or December, 2019 in the area of Enrollment Stability.

Therefore, after reviewing the database to determine which NOLA/OPSB charter reported the next highest rates of students choosing not to re-enroll during the 2017-2018 school term, LDOE staff and the IMs collectively agreed to select Dr. Martin Luther King Charter for Science/Technology to undergo on-site targeted monitoring in the area of Enrollment Stability in September, 2019. As such, LDOE staff submitted a monitoring notification letter to Martin Luther King Charter for Science/Technology school officials on August 22, 2019 informing them of an upcoming on-site targeted monitoring visit in the area of Enrollment Stability during the week of September, 23, 2019.

To avoid such concerns in the future, LDOE officials reported that the LDOE data office has begun adding a note to the bottom of the data files provided to explain such anomalies (i.e. “OPSB sites reassigned site codes in 2017-18 SY will be under their new site code unless they had any reported students under their old site code in the Oct 2017 IDEA count.”) LDOE officials further indicated this type of data error has previously not represented a concern. Instead, this data anomaly resulted in site code changes and the manner in which data was provided to LDOE between school terms.

In addition, to proactively address the concerns described above, the IMs recommended that LDOE monitoring staff collaborate with the LDOE data team to develop a protocol for verifying that all datasets used for future selections of NOLA/OPSB charter schools under the provisions of Addendum A of CJ include additional safeguards to ensure all data metrics (i.e. enrollment figures, sorting/rankings) are appropriate and correct. After briefly discussing this matter, LDOE monitoring staff agreed with this IM recommendation.

As a final remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, prior to any school selections, LDOE staff and the IMs have agreed to collectively reviewing all relevant annual school
9

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 10 of 15
selection datasets for potential concerns. The LDOE staff and the IMs have also agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Related Services) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services as outlined in the CJ Addendum.
Observed Concern 4. The 2016-2017 LDOE Child Find was observed by the IMs to be sorted by LEA site code numbers (lowest to highest) rather than ranked by the “New IDEA Identification Rates” (lowest to highest) reported by each NOLA/OPSB charter school for the 2016-2017 term. As such, the IMs investigated this potential concern to determine whether the NOLA/OPSB elementary, middle and high school charter reporting the lowest (2016-2017) new IDEA identification rate was correctly selected for targeted monitoring during the fall, 2017 Child Find monitoring cycle.
Following a thorough review of the LDOE Child Find dataset (i.e. “SPP Indicator 11 Data: Summary by LEA and Site OPSB and Charter Schools in New Orleans”) and discussions with LDOE officials regarding this specific issue, the IMs verified that NOLA/OPSB charter schools were selected in error for the Fall, 2017 (Child Find) monitoring cycle. The school selection error occurred as the result of the LDOE Child Find dataset being sorted by charter school ID codes (from lowest to highest) rather than being sorted by “New IDEA Identification Rates” (lowest to highest) reported by NOLA/OPSB charter schools for the 2016-2017 school term. That is, during the school selection process, LDOE staff selected the first OPSB elementary, middle and high school charter site listed on the database as requiring targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find. As such, school selections were not based on the NOLA/OPSB elementary, middle and high school charter site that reported the lowest “new IDEA identification rate” for the 20162017 school term as required under the Child Find school selection criteria outlined in the Addendum A of the CJ.
In discussing the Child Find selections during several conference calls, LDOE staff acknowledged and confirmed the selection error.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
To address the above-mentioned school selection error, the IMs and LDOE staff, after sorting the 2016-2017 Child Find dataset to identify all NOLA/OPSB charter schools reporting the lowest to highest “new IDEA identification” rates during the 2016-2017 school term, collectively
10

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 11 of 15

reviewed the dataset and identified the NOLA/OSPB elementary, middle and charter school site reporting the lowest annual (2016-2017) IDEA identification rates that should have been selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find during the Fall, 2017 monitoring cycle. During our review, it should be noted there were numerous NOLA/OPSB charter high schools reporting a 2016-2018 “new identification rate” of zero (0.0%). As such, the IMs and LDOE staff agreed to select the NOLA/OPSB high school charter site reporting the lowest enrollment of students with disabilities for on-site monitoring.

The table below summarizes the NOLA/OSPB charter school sites that were selected in error and the NOLA/OPSB charters that should have been selected to participate in targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find during the fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.

NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools Incorrectly Selected for Targeted Monitoring (Child Find-Fall, 2017) Mary Bethune Elementary Charter

NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools that Should have been Selected for Targeted Monitoring (Child Find-Fall, 2017) Alice M. Harte Elementary Charter School

(1.1% new identification rate-2016-17) Audubon (Middle) Charter School

(0.1% new identification rate-2016-17) KIPP Central City Academy (Middle School)

(1.8% new identification rate-2016-17) Warren Easton High School

(0.0% new identification rate-2016-17) Benjamin Franklin High School

(0.1% new identification rate 2016-17) (0.0% new identification rate)

In an attempt to remedy this school selection error, the LDOE has also scheduled additional onsite targeted monitoring visits for Alice Harte Elementary Charter School, KIPP Central City Academy (Middle) and Benjamin Franklin High School during the week of September 24-27, 2019.

Again, as an additional remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, LDOE staff and the IMs have agreed to collectively review all relevant annual (Child Find) school selection datasets for potential sorting/ranking errors. Secondly, the LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Child Find) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Child Find as outlined in the CJ Addendum.

11

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 12 of 15
Observed Concern 5. The IMs observed that NOLA/OPSB charter schools were selected for targeted monitoring based on the charter school sites reporting the highest rather than the lowest related service provision rates (i.e. average number of minutes per pupil/per week) as specified in the CJ. As such, this observation represented a potential error in charter schools selected for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services during the fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.
Based on the IMs review of the LDOE database (i.e. “2016-2017 Related Service Minutes Per Student Provided to Eligible Students under the IDEA: OPSB & Charter Schools in New Orleans Parish”), it appeared to the IMs that the list of NOLA/OPSB charter sites was rank ordered from most-to-least rather than least-to-most in terms of related service minutes provided to students with disabilities during the 2016-2017 school term. That is, the charter schools with the least presumed risk (i.e. highest rates of service delivery) were selected for targeted monitoring rather than the schools with the most presumed risk (i.e. lowest rates of Related Service provisions). After discussion, this concern with school selections was confirmed by LDOE staff. As such, this reflects an error in the NOLA/OPSB charter schools selected for Related Services monitoring during the Fall, 2017 monitoring cycle. Again, LDOE staff described this error as an inadvertent oversight as the result of the related service data (i.e. average minutes per pupil/per week) across all NOLA/OPSB charter schools being sorted from highest to lowest rather than lowest to highest.
Recommended Corrective Remedies
To address this error in school selection, the IMs and LDOE staff reviewed the LDOE database (i.e., “2016-2017 Related Service Minutes Per Student Provided to Eligible Students under the IDEA: OPSB & Charter Schools in New Orleans Parish” with all NOLA/OPSB charter schools ranked from lowest to highest related service provision rates for the 2016-2017 school term and collaborated (via phone conference) to make the correct selections for NOLA/OPSB charters that should have been designated to participate in targeted (Related Service) monitoring during the Fall, 2017 monitoring cycle.
The table below summarizes the NOLA/OPSB charter schools that were selected in error and the charter sites that should have been selected to participate in targeted monitoring activities in the area of Related Services.
12

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 13 of 15

NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools Selected

NOLA/OPSB Charter Schools that Should have

Incorrectly for Targeted Monitoring in the been Selected for Targeted Monitoring in the

area of Related Services-Fall, 2017

area of Related Services-Fall, 2017

Cypress Academy

Lusher Charter School*

218.0 average minutes per pupil/per week 3.86 average minutes per pupil/per week

Livingston Collegiate Charter School

Eleanor McMain Secondary Charter School

145.5 average minutes per pupil/per week 2.73 average minutes per pupil/per week

James M. Singleton Charter School

McDonogh 35 College Preparatory Charter**

116.9 average minutes per pupil/per week 0 minutes per pupil/per week

* Note: NOTE: Lusher Charter participated in Related Services targeted monitoring in Fall,

2018. As such, the charter site reporting the next lowest rate for related service provisions for

2016-2017 was Lake Forest Charter School. Therefore, this charter site was selected to

participate in additional Related Service monitoring in Fall, 2019.

** Note: McDonogh #35 Charter Academy was the school site that represented one of the three NOLA/OPSB charters reporting the lowest related service provision rates for the 20162017 school term. However, this 9th grade charter has since merged with McDonogh #35 College Preparatory Charter School.

Again, to initially remedy this school selection error, the LDOE proposed that the LDOE monitoring staff and IMs conduct additional on-site targeted monitoring reviews for the abovementioned NOLA/OPSB charter schools during September, 2019. As such, the LDOE submitted official notifications to school leaders for Lake Forest Charter School, Eleanor McMain Secondary Charter School, and McDonogh 35 College Preparatory Charter on August 22, 2019 informing them of a mandated on-site monitoring visit during the week of September 24-27, 2019.

Finally as mentioned previously, as an additional remedy for addressing the above-mentioned concern, LDOE staff and the IMs have also agreed to collectively review all relevant annual (Related Services) school selection datasets for potential sorting/ranking errors. Secondly, the LDOE staff and the IMs agreed to collectively reviewing the annual LDOE datasets used to select schools for targeted (Related Services) monitoring and mutually agreeing (via phone conference) on which current and future NOLA/OPSB charter schools meet the criterion for targeted monitoring in the area of Related Services consistent with the requirements outlined in the Addendum A of the CJ.

13

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 14 of 15
Summary
The IMs initial inquiry and follow-up investigation of potential errors in the process of selecting schools for targeted monitoring revealed that a total of ten (10) NOLA/OPSB charter school sites were selected in error for the fall, 2017 (eight charter school sites) and fall, 2018 (two charter school sites). Based on a thorough review of LDOE databases/school selection documents, along with numerous communications with LDOE officials (via email and phone conference), the IMs believe these errors occurred as the result of inadvertent data oversights (i.e. enrollment/sorting errors, technicalities in charter school site code changes, and human error) rather than any attempt to circumvent the school selection process.
As noted previously, the LDOE Director of Special Education Programs/IDEA monitoring, LDOE monitoring staff, and LDOE legal counsel have each acknowledged the abovementioned oversights in making appropriate selections for NOLA/OPSB charter schools required to undergo targeted monitoring during the fall, 2017 and fall, 2018 school terms. Further, in addition to being cooperative and forthcoming regarding these issues, LDOE staff immediately offered, what the IMs believe to be, a reasonable initial remedy for correcting these oversights (i.e. broadening the overall scope of LDOE oversight by conducting additional monitoring for the NOLA/OPSB charter sites that should have been originally selected for targeted monitoring). The LDOE staff and legal counsel have also agreed with IM recommendations for developing proactive safeguards for preventing any future school selection errors and collectively reviewing and agreeing upon schools which NOLA/OPSB charters should be properly selected for any targeted monitoring visits that may be conducted in the future.
In addition to the LDOE’s acknowledgment of their role in these oversights in proper school selections summarized above, the IMs, too, equally acknowledge their role in failing to more carefully review the NOLA/OPSB charter school sites selected for targeted monitoring in the fall, 2017 and/or fall, 2018 monitoring cycles. As such, the IMs wish to express their sincere regret to all parties and feel confident that the LDOE and IMs suggested remedies with prove to be successful for avoiding such oversights in the future.
Finally, although these errors in did, in fact, result in numerous NOLA/OPSB charter school sites being selected incorrectly for targeted monitoring, the IMs, do not judge these concerns, albeit unfortunate, as compromising the integrity of the process of selecting schools for targeted monitoring as outlined in the CJ. That is, with no intention or attempt whatsoever to minimize the school selection errors that were committed, if the integrity of the school selection process was seriously compromised, one could reasonably predict that the NOLA/OPSB charter schools that were selected in error ( i.e. charters with the least presumed risk based on the highest (not
14

Case 2:10-cv-04049-JCZ-KWR Document 399 Filed 10/02/19 Page 15 of 15
lowest) related service rates, lowest (not highest) rate of enrollment stability and/or higher rates of IDEA identification) would likely demonstrate a higher rate of acceptable IDEA compliance upon initial review. To the contrary, however, when reviewing the fall, 2017 and fall, 2018 compliance outcomes for the abovementioned charter schools selected in error, eight (8) of ten (10) NOLA/OPSB charters (80%) that were verified as being incorrectly selected to undergo targeted monitoring were placed on Corrective Action Plans as the result of systemic noncompliance observed across various IDEA mandates across the areas of Child Find, Related Services and/or Enrollment Stability. These NOLA/OPSB charter schools included:
1. James Singleton Charter School (Related Service- fall 2017) 2. Cypress Academy (Related Services - fall, 2017) 3. Livingston Collegiate Academy (Related Services – fall, 2017 4. Mary Bethune Charter School (Child Find- fall, 2017) 5. Warren Easton Charter High School (Child Find-fall, 2017) 6. Einstein Middle Charter at Sarah Towles Reed (Enrollment-fall 2017) 7. Audubon Charter School (Related Services-fall, 2018) 8. Lusher Charter School (Related Services-fall, 2018)
These findings are consistent with the overall findings of the systemic noncompliance observed across NOLA/OPSB charter schools selected for initial targeted monitoring reviews during the spring, 2016 and fall, 2016 monitoring cycles. Perhaps this unique observation may reflect inherent concerns with the validity of the selection criterion metrics (i.e. non re-enrollment rates, average related service minutes, new IDEA identification rates) as outlined in Addendum A of the CJ for reliably predicting a charter schools’ actual level of risk for IDEA noncompliance and/or further indicates the level of concerns that continue to exist among NOLA/OPSB schools with regard to IDEA compliance, thus suggesting the continued need for LDOE oversight and support under the provisions of the CJ.
In closing, although the IMs agree with the LDOE’s suggestion of conducting additional on-site monitoring reviews, it should be noted that regardless of the view of the IMs, there are no provisions outlined in the CJ for such activities (i.e. additional monitoring) serving as a corrective remedy for addressing these unforeseen circumstances. As such, it is recommended that counsel for the plaintiff’s class, LDOE legal counsel and OPSB legal counsel meet to discuss this matter further and hopefully come to a reasonable resolution for how to best move forward with completing the required activities outlined in the CJ.
15

 
 CLASS,CLOSED,PROTO
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:10−cv−04049−JCZ−KWR

Berry et al v. Pastorek et al Assigned to: Judge Jay C. Zainey Referred to: Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby Cause: 20:1412 Disabilities Education Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/26/2010 Date Terminated: 03/25/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Cassandra Berry Next friend of P.B.

represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−526−1502 Email: adriana.luciano@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alejandro H. Cruz Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: acruz@pbwt.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brenda L. Shum Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 1401 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8600 Email: bshum@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE

Davida Finger Loyola Law School Clinic 7214 St. Charles Ave. New Orleans, LA 70118 504−861−5596 Email: dfinger@loyno.edu ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman ACLU of Virginia 701 E. Franklin Street Suite 1412 Richmond, VA 23219 804−523−2152 Email: ebheilman@gmail.com TERMINATED: 02/27/2018

Elizabeth L. Callahan Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: emgelernter@pbwt.com
James E. Comstock−Galagan James Comstock−Galagan Law Office 6314 Carlson Drive New Orleans, LA 70122 228−363−0514 Email: jimcg39@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 1055 St. Charles Ave. Suite 505 New Orleans, LA 70130 504−486−8982 Email: jasmine.bolton@splcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco 3319 St. Claude Ave New Orleans, LA 70117 504−619−9999 Email: jencoco@gmail.com TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery) 400 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 334−956−8320 Email: jerri.katzerman@splcenter.org TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 1401 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8600 TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 1401 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8600 Email: jgreenbaum@lawyerscommittee.org

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (New Orleans) 1340 Poydras St. Suite 2160 P. O. Box 56157 New Orleans, LA 70156 504−522−0628 Email: kschwartzmann@laaclu.org TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: kadler@pbwt.com TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 1401 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8333 Email: msykes@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: mfaridi@pbwt.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu Southern Poverty Law Center 201 St. Charles Ave Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−486−8982 Email: neil.ranu@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 TERMINATED: 07/27/2011

PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi Southern Poverty Law Center (Jackson) 921 North President St. Jackson, MS 39202 (601) 948−8882 Email: sheila.a.bedi@gmail.com TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−486−8982 Email: sophia.mire.hill@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights 1401 New York Avenue N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202−662−8600 Email: smallick@lawyerscommittee.org TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: tkurland@pbwt.com
Timothy Waters Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: twaters@pbwt.com
Victor M. Jones Southern Poverty Law Center (New Orleans) 201 St. Charles Ave Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70170 504−486−8982 Email: victor.jones@splcenter.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 Email: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Leskisher Luckett Next friend of D.B.

William F. Schmedlin Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler, LLP (New York) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036−6710 212−336−2000 TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Kelly Fischer Next friend of N.F.

represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address)

Plaintiff
Rosezina Jefferson Next friend of A.J.

TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Jeanette Johnson Next friend of T.J.

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Kimberly Jones Next friend of K.J.

Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012

Plaintiff
Nancy McSween Next friend of M.M.

Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland

Plaintiff
Shelton Joseph Next friend of L.M.

(See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chanell Thomas Next friend of D.T.

William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE

Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE

Plaintiff
Cynthia Parker Next friend of L.W.

represented by Adriana Teresa Luciano (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Alejandro H. Cruz (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Brenda L. Shum (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/14/2019 PRO HAC VICE
Davida Finger (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Eden B. Heilman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/27/2018
Elizabeth L. Callahan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
Eugene M. Gelernter (See above for address)
James E. Comstock−Galagan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jasmine Ariel Bolton (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer M. Coco (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/29/2018
Jerri Katzerman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/25/2015 PRO HAC VICE
John K. DiPaolo (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014 PRO HAC VICE
Jon M. Greenbaum (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/13/2013
Krista Dawn Adler (See above for address)

V.
Defendant
Paul Pastorek in his official capacity as the Louisiana State Superintendent of Education TERMINATED: 01/13/2012

TERMINATED: 07/13/2016
Matthew D. Sykes (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2014
Muhammad U. Faridi (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Neilinder Singh Ranu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Poopak Banky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE
Rosanne E. Felicello (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011 PRO HAC VICE
Sheila A. Bedi (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/2012
Sophia Mire Hill (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sumit Mallick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/27/2011
Thomas P. Kurland (See above for address)
Timothy Waters (See above for address)
Victor M. Jones (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Cavanaugh , Jr. (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William F. Schmedlin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/09/2017 PRO HAC VICE
represented by Joan Ellen Hunt Louisiana Department of Education General Counsel 1201 N. 3rd St. P. O. Box 94064

Defendant
Department of Education State of Louisiana

Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9064 225−342−3572 Fax: 225−342−1197 Email: joan.hunt@la.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelique Duhon Freel Louisiana Department of Justice (Civil Div −Baton Rouge) 1885 N. 3rd Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 225−326−6017 Email: freela@ag.state.la.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Maree Sneed Hogan Lovells US LLP (Washington DC) Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20004 202−637−6416 Fax: 202−637−5910 Email: maree.sneed@hoganlovells.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joan Ellen Hunt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Audrey E. Moog Hogan Lovells US LLP (Washington DC) Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20004 202−637−8313 Email: audrey.moog@hoganlovells.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candice Richards Forest Orleans Parish School Board (Suite 5055) 3520 General DeGaulle Suite 5055 New Orleans, LA 70114 504−340−3520 Email: cforest@opsb.us TERMINATED: 06/21/2018
Kathe R. Zolman Louisiana Department of Education General Counsel 1201 N. 3rd St. P. O. Box 94064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9064 225−342−3572 Email: kathe.zolman@la.gov TERMINATED: 08/02/2016

Defendant
Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education

Maree Sneed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Christopher Fruge Louisiana Department of Education General Counsel 1201 N. 3rd St. P. O. Box 94064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9064 225−342−3572 Email: chris.fruge@la.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrell Theodore Manieri , III Hammonds, Sills, Adkins & Guice, LLP 2431 S. Acadian Thruway Suite 600 Baton Rouge, LA 70808 225−923−3462 Fax: 225−923−0315 Email: manierity@gmail.com TERMINATED: 03/02/2016
Willa R LeBlanc Louisiana Department of Education General Counsel 1201 N. 3rd St. P. O. Box 94064 Baton Rouge, LA 70804−9064 225−342−3572 Fax: 225−342−1197 Email: Willa.LeBlanc@la.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Joan Ellen Hunt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Audrey E. Moog (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathe R. Zolman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2016
Maree Sneed (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Christopher Fruge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrell Theodore Manieri , III

Defendant John White in his official capacity as the Louisiana State Superintendent of Education
Defendant Orleans Parish School Board

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2016
represented by Joan Ellen Hunt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Angelique Duhon Freel (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Audrey E. Moog (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Candice Richards Forest (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/21/2018
Kathe R. Zolman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2016
Maree Sneed Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth St., NW Washington, DC 20004 202−637−6416 Fax: 202−637−5910 Email: maree.sneed@hoganlovells.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Christopher Fruge (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tyrell Theodore Manieri , III (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2016
Willa R LeBlanc (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert L. Hammonds Hammonds & Sills 1111 S. Foster Dr. Suite C Baton Rouge, LA 70806−7238 225−923−3462 Email: rhammonds@hamsil.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wayne Thomas Stewart Hammonds & Sills 1111 S. Foster Dr. Suite C Baton Rouge, LA 70806−7238

Interested Party
Dale Bailey Independent Monitor

225−923−3462 Fax: 225−923−0315 Email: wstewart@hamsil.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/26/2010
10/26/2010
10/26/2010 10/27/2010 10/28/2010
11/03/2010 11/09/2010 11/10/2010
11/12/2010 11/15/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek (Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 053L−2672478) filed by Kimberly Jones, Kelly Fischer, Nancy McSween, Chanell Thomas, Leskisher Luckett, Shelton Joseph, Cassandra Berry, Rosezina Jefferson, Cynthia Parker, Jeanette Johnson. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
2 **DEFICIENT** MOTION to Certify Class by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Declaration)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 10/27/2010 (plh, ). (Entered: 10/26/2010)
3 Initial Case Assignment to Judge Helen G. Berrigan and Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby. (cl, ) (Entered: 10/26/2010)
4 Summons Issued as to Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. (Attachments: # 1 Summons La Dept of Ed, # 2 Summons BESE)(plh, ) (Entered: 10/27/2010)
5 MOTION to Certify Class by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2011 09:30 AM before Judge Helen G. Berrigan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Affidavit Declaration of Representative Plaintiffs, # 5 Affidavit Declaration of Attorney)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 10/28/2010)
6 ORDER dismissing as premature plas' 5 Motion to Certify Class as set forth herein. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 11/1/2010. (rll, ) (Entered: 11/03/2010)
7 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint, by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 11/09/2010)
8 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order on Motion to Certify Class ; by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 11/12/2010 (plh, ). (Entered: 11/10/2010)
9 ORDER granting 7 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint, as to Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education; Louisiana Department of Education; Paul Pastorek answer due 12/9/2010. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 11/12/10. (plh, ) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
10 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order on Motion to Certify Class ; by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2010 09:30 AM before Judge Helen G. Berrigan. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 11/15/2010)

11/15/2010 11/30/2010
12/01/2010 12/01/2010 12/03/2010 12/18/2010 12/20/2010 12/29/2010 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/07/2011 01/10/2011 01/11/2011
01/12/2011

11 ORDER in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and 455(e) and with Canon 3−C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 11/15/10.(plh, ) (Entered: 11/16/2010)
12 **DEFICIENT** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint, and 8 Motion for Reconsideration by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Freel, Angelique) Modified on 12/1/2010 (plh, ). (Entered: 11/30/2010)
13 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. Case transferred to Judge Jay C. Zainey for all further proceedings. Judge Helen G. Berrigan no longer assigned to case. Signed by Judge Helen G. Berrigan on 12/1/10.(plh, )(NEF: KCounty, JCZ) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
14 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Document Number 1 and 10 by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Proposed Order)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 12/01/2010)
15 ORDER GRANTING 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. 10 Motion to Reconsider is reset for 1/19/2011 on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 12/03/2010)
16 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2742756) by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 12/18/2010)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Maree Sneed.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/20/2010. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 12/29/2010)
19 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. Motion Hearing set for 2/2/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
20 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek re 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order on Motion to Certify Class. (Freel, Angelique) Modified on 1/10/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/07/2011)
21 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek regarding 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case (Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 01/07/2011)
22 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 19 MOTION to Dismiss. By Clerk.(jrc, ) (Entered: 01/10/2011)
23 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit)(Heilman, Eden) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/12/2011: # 2 Exhibit 1 part 1, # 3 Exhibit 1 part 2, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 11) (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/11/2011)
24 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 23 Response/Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. Filing attorney did not include exhibits. Exhibit 1−27 were subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the response. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/12/2011)

01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011

25 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Intent to Withdraw 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order on Motion to Certify Class. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
26 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Sheila A. Bedi (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771445) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified text on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
27 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jon M. Greenbaum(Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771446) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
28 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Brenda L. Shum(Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771447) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
29 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jennifer M. Coco(Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771448) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
30 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice John K. DiPaolo(Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771449) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
31 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771450) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
32 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Eugene M. Gelernter(Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771451) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
33 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Rosanne E. Felicello (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771452) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
34 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Krista Caner (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771453) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)

01/13/2011
01/13/2011
01/13/2011
01/13/2011
01/14/2011
01/14/2011
01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/18/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011

35 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice William F. Schmedlin (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771454) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
36 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Muhammad U. Faridi(Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771455) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
37 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Poopak Banky (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771456) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
38 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Timothy Waters (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771458) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/14/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
39 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 26 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Sheila A. Bedi (Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 053L−2771445). Filing attorney should have changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?' before clicking the Next button. Clerk modified docket text to reflect 'Exparte'. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
40 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
41 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
42 ORDER granting 31 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
43 ORDER granting 40 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case until 2/8/2011; Motion to Dismiss continued for hearing on Court's 2/16/2011 hearing date. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011.(rll, ) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
44 ORDER granting 26 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sheila A. Bedi. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
45 ORDER granting 27 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jon M. Greenbaum. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
46 ORDER granting 28 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Brenda L. Shum. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
47 ORDER granting 29 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jennifer M. Coco. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
48 ORDER granting 32 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Eugene M. Gelernter. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)

01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011 01/20/2011
01/21/2011
01/24/2011
01/24/2011
01/25/2011 01/25/2011
01/25/2011 01/25/2011

49 ORDER granting 33 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Rosanne E. Felicello. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
50 ORDER granting 34 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Krista Caner. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
51 ORDER granting 35 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to William F. Schmedlin. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
52 ORDER granting 36 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Muhammad U. Faridi. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
53 ORDER granting 37 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Poopak Banky. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
54 ORDER granting 38 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Timothy Waters. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/18/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
55 ORDER granting 41 Motion for Leave to File a Reply. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/19/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
56 REPLY in Further Support filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek re 18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/20/2011)
57 ORDER that ORAL ARGUMENT on 10 MOTION for Reconsideration re 6 Order on Motion to Certify Class and 18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue is set for 2/23/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. No additional memoranda will be accepted for filing in conjunction with these motions. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(gbw, ) (Entered: 01/21/2011)
58 DEFICIENT** MOTION Schedule Status Conference by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Notice of Hearing)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/24/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/21/2011)
59 ORDER dismissing as moot 10 Motion for Reconsideration; FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument set for 2/23/2011 at 10:00 AM will proceed as scheduled but solely as to the Motion to Transfer Venue (Rec. Doc. 18). Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/21/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
60 MOTION to Schedule a Status Conference by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion Hearing set for 2/16/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Hearing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
61 ORDER granting 30 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to John K. DiPaolo.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/21/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
62 ORDER granting 60 MOTION to Schedule a Status Conference. Assuming that the Court denies the 18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue, the court will conduct a Status Conference on 2/23/2011, following the oral argument set for that morning. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/25/2011.(gbw, ) (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/25/2011)
63 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 62 Order. Clerk did not attach the image of document. Clerk took corrective action.(gbw, ) (Entered: 01/25/2011)
64 RENEWED MOTION to Certify Class by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion Hearing set for 3/2/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit Attorney Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 8 Affidavit Parent Declarations, # 9 Notice of Hearing, # 10 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 2/1/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 01/25/2011)

01/31/2011 02/01/2011 02/02/2011 02/03/2011 02/04/2011 02/04/2011 02/17/2011
02/17/2011 02/17/2011 02/18/2011
02/18/2011 02/18/2011

65 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas regarding 64 MOTION to Certify Class (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
66 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 64 MOTION to Certify Class filed by plaintiffs. By Clerk. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
67 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue : Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2011 is CONTINUED to 3/30/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(gbw, ) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
68 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
69 ORDER The Court enters this order to clarify for all interested parties that the Status Conference scheduled to follow the oral argument on 18 MOTION to Transfer Case Venue, has also been moved to Wednesday, 3/30/2011, to immediately follow the oral argument.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/4/2011.(gbw, ) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
70 ORDER granting 68 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss; Response due 2/18/2011. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/4/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/04/2011)
71 ERROR: SINGLE RELIEF USED INSTEAD OF MULTIPLE RELIEFS. MOTION to Continue HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. Motion set for 3/16/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Freel, Angelique) Modified on 2/18/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/17/2011)
72 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Expedite Motion to Continue Hearing on Plaintiffs Motion by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. (Freel, Angelique) Modified on 2/18/2011 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/18/2011: # 1 Proposed Order) (gbw, ). Modified on 2/18/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/17/2011)
74 MOTION to Continue Hearing, MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 64 RENEWED MOTION to Certify Class by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. Motion set for 3/16/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(gbw, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
73 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 71 MOTION to Continue HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THE MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. Filing attorney selected only one relief for a multiple−relief motion. To select multiple reliefs, you must select all applicable reliefs by clicking the additional relief(s) under 'Available Events' before clicking the Next button. Clerk took corrective action by re−docketing the document using the reliefs Motion to Continue and Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
75 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 72 MOTION to Expedite MOTION TO CONTINUE HEARING ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION. Filing attorney did not include a proposed order. Proposed Order subsequently provided to Clerk and has now been attached to the motion. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/18/2011)
76 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas re 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case. (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 02/18/2011)

02/22/2011 03/04/2011 03/11/2011 03/11/2011 03/30/2011
04/15/2011
04/19/2011 04/26/2011
04/26/2011
04/26/2011
05/10/2011 05/31/2011 05/31/2011 06/03/2011

77 ORDER granting 74 Motion to Continue/for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; denying as moot 72 Motion to Expedite. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/18/11. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
78 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading)(Freel, Angelique) (Entered: 03/04/2011)
79 ORDER granting 78 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/10/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
80 REPLY Memorandum in Support filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education re 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case. (rll, ) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
81 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey; Oral argument held on 3/30/2011 DENYING 18 MOTION to Transfer Venue. Oral argument on 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case set for 4/26/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Discovery related to class certification to begin. (Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (jrc, ) (Entered: 03/30/2011)
82 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−2952042) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 04/15/2011)
83 ORDER granting 82 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Sumit Mallick.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/18/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/19/2011)
84 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion set for 5/25/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Exhibit D, # 7 Exhibit E, # 8 Exhibit F, # 9 Exhibit G, # 10 Exhibit H, # 11 Exhibit I, # 12 Notice of Submission, # 13 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
85 MOTION for Discovery by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion set for 5/25/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 4/26/2011 (gbw, ). (Per chambers, set bfr Judge Zainey) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
86 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey; Motion Hearing held on 4/26/2011, DENYING 19 MOTION to Dismiss Case filed by Defendants. Proposed CMO due 5/31/11 as to Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification issues. Status Conference set for 7/7/2011 2:30 PM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Other Deadlines set herein. (Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (jrc, ) (Entered: 04/26/2011)
87 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek.(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 05/10/2011)
88 Proposed Case Management Order by All Plaintiffs (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 6/1/2011 to edit event (rll, ). (Entered: 05/31/2011)
89 Response/Reply by All Defendants to 88 Proposed Case Management Order (Sneed, Maree) Modified on 6/1/2011 to edit text (rll, ). (Entered: 05/31/2011)
90 ORDER ADDRESSING PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDERS: ORDERED that a Status Conference is set for 11/1/2011 02:30 AM in chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties' joint CMO shall be filed by 6/15/2011. Class Certification Hearing is set for 11/30/2011 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(gbw, ) (Entered: 06/03/2011)

06/15/2011 06/21/2011 06/30/2011
07/01/2011 07/07/2011 07/07/2011
07/18/2011 07/25/2011 07/25/2011 07/27/2011 07/27/2011 08/05/2011 08/08/2011 08/09/2011
08/12/2011 08/16/2011

91 Proposed Joint Case Management Order by All Parties (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 6/16/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/15/2011)
92 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/20/11.(jrc, ) (Entered: 06/21/2011)
93 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Katie M. Schwartzmann by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 7/1/2011 to edit event & text (rll, ). (Entered: 06/30/2011)
94 ORDER Status Conference converted to Telephone Conference set for 7/7/2011 9:45 AM. The Court will initiate the call. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/01/2011)
95 ORDER granting 93 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann for all plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/6/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/07/2011)
96 Minute Order. Proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Telephone Status Conference held on 7/7/2011. ORDERED that a Follow−up Telephone Conference is set for 8/16/2011 10:45 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. FURTHER ORDERED that the 84 Motion for Preliminary Injunction & the 85 Motion for Discovery are DENIED AS MOOT. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/11/2011)
97 ORDER Settlement Conference set for 8/2/2011 07:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (NEF: Judge Africk)(caa, ) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
98 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Sumit Mallick as Attorney by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
99 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Rosanne Felicello as Attorney by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 07/25/2011)
100 ORDER granting 98 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for plaintiffs. Attorney Sumit Mallick terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/26/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
101 ORDER granting 99 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for plaintiffs. Attorney Rosanne E. Felicello terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/26/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
102 DEFICIENT** STIPULATION by All Parties and Order of Confidentiality (Sneed, Maree) Modified on 8/8/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/05/2011)
103 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. Motion set for 8/31/2011 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 08/08/2011)
104 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Paul Pastorek, Chanell Thomas. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulation and Proposed Confidentiality Order, # 2 Exhibit A to Stipulation and Proposed Confidentiality Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 08/09/2011)
105 ORDER denying 104 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 8/11/2011. (rll, ) (Entered: 08/12/2011)
106 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul

08/16/2011 08/18/2011
08/19/2011 08/19/2011 08/22/2011 08/23/2011 08/25/2011
08/26/2011 08/30/2011
08/31/2011 08/31/2011 09/19/2011 09/21/2011

Pastorek. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Proposed Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification, # 2 Proposed Pleading Proposed Exhibit 1, # 3 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
107 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Telephone Status Conference was held on 8/16/2011. ORDERED that a Follow−up Status Conference is set for 8/31/2011 01:30 PM in chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/17/2011)
108 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION for Protective Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Paul Pastorek, Chanell Thomas. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Stipulation and Proposed Order of Confidentiality, # 2 Exhibit Ex A to Stipulation and Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
109 ORDER granting 106 Motion for Leave to File Memo in Excess of Page Limit. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/17/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
110 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek re 64 RENEWED MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(gbw, ) (Entered: 08/19/2011)
111 PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen Wells Roby on 8/19/2011.(rll, ) (Entered: 08/22/2011)
112 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 103 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
113 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct 92 Case Management Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 8/26/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/25/2011)
114 FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/26/2011.(gbw, ) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
115 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Further Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading Reply in Further Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) Modified on 8/31/2011 (gbw, ). (Entered: 08/30/2011)
116 ORDER granting 115 Motion for Leave to File Reply Memo in Further Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/31/2011. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
117 REPLY MEMORANDUM in Further Support filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek re 103 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (gbw, ) (Entered: 08/31/2011)
118 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Stay by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 09/19/2011)
119 ORDER granting 118 Joint MOTION to Stay the Hearing & Other Deadlines as stated herein; Class certification hearing scheduled to commence on 11/30/2011 is CANCELLED. In its stead, the Court will hold a status conference on thay same date at 10:00 AM in chambers. If the parties believe that it would bebeneficial to hold the conference at a date closer to their 10/28/2011,status conference with Judge Africk then they can so advise the Court and thestatus conference will be reset for an earlier date convenient to all parties. The pre−trial/status conference set for 11/1/2011 is CANCELLED; Court will dismiss 103 Motion forJudgment on the Pleadings as stated

11/17/2011 11/30/2011 12/19/2011 01/03/2012 01/11/2012 01/11/2012 01/13/2012 01/13/2012 01/19/2012 02/03/2012 02/08/2012
02/28/2012
03/07/2012 03/08/2012

herein.(gbw, ) (Entered: 09/21/2011)
120 ORDER that the status conference set for 11/30/2011 10:00 AM CST shall proceed as a telephone conference with the Court. Counsel will provide the Court with call in information. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/15/2011.(gbw, ) (Entered: 11/17/2011)
121 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Telephone Status Conference held on 11/30/2011. Follow−up Status Conference is set for 1/3/2012 10:45 AM by phone before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/01/2011)
122 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Conference held on 12/19/2011. Additional Telephone Settlement Conference set for 12/21/2011 02:00 PM before Judge Lance M Africk. Deadline for resolutions are stated herein. (gbw, ) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
123 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 1/3/2012. Follow−up Status Conference set for 1/12/2012 11:15 AM by telephone. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/04/2012)
124 ORDER Phone Conference set for 1/12/2012 is RESET for 1/13/2012 08:00 AM (central) before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/10/2012.(gbw, ) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
125 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Substitute Name of Defendant by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
126 ORDER granting 125 Motion to Substitute name of dft; ORDERED that John White, State Superintendent of Education, is substituted as dft in referenced cause Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/12/2012. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/13/2012)
127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 1/13/2012; IT IS ORDERED that follow−up Status Conference by phone is set for 1/19/2012 08:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/17/2012)
128 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 1/19/2012; IT IS ORDERED that follow−up Status Conference by phone is set for 2/3/2012 07:30 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (rll, ) (Entered: 01/20/2012)
129 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 2/3/2012. Follow−up Status Conference set for 2/8/2012 02:30 PM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/07/2012)
130 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 2/8/2012. Follow−up Status Conference set for 2/23/2012 08:00 AM (central) by Phone before Judge Jay C. Zainey. By Wednesday, 2/22/2012, the parties are to submit to the Court a brief updateof the issues discussed at todays conference. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/10/2012)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 2/28/2012. ORDERED that counsel for the parties shall confer to prepare a joint CMO containing proposed deadlines and cutoff dates to govern this matter, said CMO to be submitted no later than March 9, 2012. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall submit a follow−up status report regarding the individual case summaries contained in Defendants February 23, 2012, letter to the Court, said report to be submitted within the next two (2) weeks.(gbw, ) (Entered: 02/29/2012)
132 ORDER that the deadline for submitting a joint Case Management Order and follow−up status report regarding the individual case summaries (Rec. Doc. 131) is extended to Monday, March 26, 2012. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/6/2012.(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/07/2012)
133 MOTION to Intervene by Orleans Parish School Board. Motion set for 4/11/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Notice of Submission)(Stewart, Wayne) Modified on 3/8/2012 (gbw, ). (acceptable per chambers bfr district judge) (Entered: 03/08/2012)

03/08/2012 03/09/2012
03/13/2012
03/14/2012 03/15/2012 03/16/2012 03/20/2012 03/26/2012 03/29/2012 04/05/2012 04/16/2012 04/24/2012
04/25/2012 04/30/2012
06/12/2012 06/14/2012 06/18/2012

134 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 133 MOTION to Intervene. Any party seeking to oppose the motion must do so by 3/15/2012 4:00 PM, at which time the motion will be submitted on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 03/08/2012)
135 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 133 MOTION to Intervene. Reminder for future documents regarding form − Per LR 10.1: All documents filed in this court must be in 8−1/2 by 11 inch format, legibly written or printed without defacing erasures or interlineations, and must be DOUBLE SPACED, except that quotations and footnotes may be single spaced. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/09/2012)
136 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Pro Hac Vice Admission for Jennifer Coco by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
137 ORDER granting 136 Motion to Amend pro hac vice admission as to Jennifer Coco to reflect her affiliation with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/14/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 03/14/2012)
138 DEFICIENT** RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 133 MOTION to Intervene. (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/16/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/15/2012)
139 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 133 MOTION to Intervene. (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 03/16/2012)
140 ORDER granting 133 Motion to Intervene as to Orleans Parish School Board. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/20/2012. (gbw, ) Modified on 3/20/2012 (gbw, ). (intervening as a defendant per chambers. (Entered: 03/20/2012)
141 Proposed Case Management Order by All Plaintiffs (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 3/27/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 03/26/2012)
142 ORDER that a Status Conference by telephone is set for 4/5/2012 03:30 PM (Central) before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/29/2012.(gbw, ) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
143 ORDER Status Conference RESET for 4/11/2012 3:00 PM by telephone. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/4/12.(jrc, ) (Entered: 04/05/2012)
144 ORDER Status Conference set for 4/30/2012 02:00 PM in chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/4/2012.(gbw, ) (Entered: 04/16/2012)
145 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jerri Katzerman (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3484642) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Attorney Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
146 ORDER granting 145 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jerri Katzerman.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/25/2012. (gbw, ) (Entered: 04/25/2012)
147 Minute Entry for Status Conference held before Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/30/2012. Case Summaries due 5/30/12. Settlement Conference set for 6/6/2012 8:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. CMO due 6/12/12 12:00 PM. Follow−up Status Conference set for 6/14/2012 1:30 PM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 05/02/2012)
148 Proposed Joint Case Management Order by All Parties (Heilman, Eden) Modified on 6/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 06/12/2012)
149 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 6/14/2012. Follow−up Status Conference set for 6/28/2012 11:15 AM by telephone. Class Certification Hearing set for 8/19/2013. (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
150 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/14/2012.(gbw, ) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

06/28/2012 07/31/2012 08/09/2012 08/23/2012 08/24/2012 09/10/2012
09/11/2012
09/11/2012 09/12/2012 09/13/2012 09/17/2012 09/18/2012
09/18/2012
09/20/2012

151 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 6/28/2012. THE JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER IS NOW IN EFFECT. Follow−up Status Conference set for 8/1/2012 11:00 AM by telephone. (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/29/2012)
152 ORDER Status Conference RESET for 8/9/2012 3:30 PM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
153 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 8/9/2012. Conference set for 10/30/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Deadlines set herein. (jrc, ) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
154 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Sheila Bedi as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 08/23/2012)
155 ORDER granting 154 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Sheila A. Bedi terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/24/2012. (my, ) (Entered: 08/27/2012)
156 ORDER In light of delays attributable to Hurricane Isaac, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs deadline for submission of their updated Individual Case Summaries is extended to 9/28/12, and Defendants deadline for responding to the Individual Case Summaries is extended to 10/26/12; Status Conference reset for 11/13/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 09/10/2012)
157 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek, John White. Motion set for 9/26/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Sneed, Maree) Modified on 9/12/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/11/2012)
158 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Paul Pastorek, John White regarding 157 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. (Sneed, Maree) Modified on 9/12/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/11/2012)
159 NOTICE regarding oral argument on 157 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, John White, Paul Pastorek, Louisiana Department of Education. By Clerk.(jrc, ) (Entered: 09/12/2012)
160 ORDER Setting Oral Argument on 157 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Motion set for 12/12/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Deadlines set herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 09/13/2012)
161 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Document re 158 Request/Statement of Oral Argument, by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 09/17/2012)
162 ORDER granting 161 MOTION to Withdraw Document re 158 Request/Statement of Oral Argument filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, John White & Louisiana Department of Education. Motion will be taken under submission on 12/5/2012, on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/17/2012.(caa, ) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
163 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Matthew D. Sykes (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3663108) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Exhibit Declaration, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 09/18/2012)
164 ORDER granting 163 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Matthew D. Sykes for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/19/12. (jrc, ) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/26/2012
09/26/2012
09/26/2012
09/26/2012 09/26/2012 09/27/2012 09/27/2012 09/27/2012 10/02/2012 10/04/2012 10/05/2012
10/05/2012
10/10/2012
10/25/2012 10/30/2012

165 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declarations and Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hunt, Joan) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
166 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Credit Card not accepted or unavailable − payment of filing fee due within 2 business days) by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declarations and Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Proposed Order)(Hunt, Joan) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
167 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. Motion set for 10/24/2012 9:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission)(Sneed, Maree) Modified on 9/27/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/26/2012)
168 ORDER granting 165 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Tyrell T. Manieri, III. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
169 ORDER granting 166 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Audrey E. Moog.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 09/26/2012)
170 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 167 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations. Filing attorney selected incorrect time. Correct time is 9:00 AM. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
Filing fee paid from Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White for TYRELL T. MANIERI re 165 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $ 100) (jmd, ) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
Filing fee paid from Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White for AUDREY E. MOOG re 166 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, (Filing fee $ 100) (jmd, ) (Entered: 09/27/2012)
171 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION CONSENT TO JOIN CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT by Orleans Parish School Board. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Wayne) (Entered: 10/02/2012)
172 ORDER granting 171 Motion for Inclusion in Confidentiality Agreement. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/3/12. (jrc, ) (Entered: 10/04/2012)
173 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Permission to File a Reply Brief by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Cavanaugh, William) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
174 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 173 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Permission to File a Reply Brief. Document contains no Magistrate Judge. All future pleadings must reflect Section A and Magistrate Judge 4. The title of the attached proposed order should not include the word Proposed but only reflect Order on the actual document. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/05/2012)
175 ORDER GRANTING 173 Joint MOTION for Extension of Deadlines to Respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Permission to File a Reply Brief; Resetting Hearing on 167 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations; Motion 167 Motion to Strike Class Allegations reset for 11/21/2012 on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/9/12.(jrc, ) (Entered: 10/10/2012)
176 ORDER Status Conference reset for 11/19/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/23/12.(jrc, ) (Entered: 10/25/2012)
177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion set for 11/21/2012 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in

10/31/2012
10/31/2012 10/31/2012 11/02/2012 11/09/2012
11/14/2012
11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/16/2012 11/19/2012
11/27/2012 11/28/2012
12/04/2012 12/05/2012 12/26/2012 12/28/2012

Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Notice of Submission, # 10 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 10/31/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/30/2012)
178 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents. When refiling motion, attorney should enter 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. Motion should be set before the Magistrate Judge. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
179 ORDER Conference reset for 12/10/2012 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/30/12.(jrc, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
180 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents. Motion was previously marked deficient. Motion is now acceptable as filed. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/31/2012)
181 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 167 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations . (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 11/02/2012)
182 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct 150 Scheduling Order, MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Sneed, Maree) Modified on 11/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2012: # 1 Proposed Order) (gbw, ). Modified on 11/13/2012 (gbw, ). (Entered: 11/09/2012)
183 ORDER GRANTING 182 MOTION to Amend/Correct Scheduling Order and MOTION for Extension of Deadlines. ORDER Resetting Submission Date on 177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents for 12/5/2012 on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
184 ORDER Guidelines regarding conference set for 12/10/12. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/15/12.(jrc, ) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
185 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 157 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
186 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White re 167 MOTION to Strike Class Allegations . (Moog, Audrey) (Entered: 11/16/2012)
187 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 186 Reply to Response to Motion. Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
188 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White re 157 RENEWED MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings . (Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 11/27/2012)
189 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White re 177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Moog Declaration, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 11/28/2012)
190 ORDER Conference reset for 1/14/2013 10:30 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/3/12.(jrc, ) (Entered: 12/04/2012)
191 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents . (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 12/05/2012)
192 ORDER denying 157 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and 167 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/21/2012. (caa, ) (Entered: 12/26/2012)
193 MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion set for

01/08/2013 01/10/2013
01/14/2013
01/16/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/22/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 01/24/2013 02/26/2013
02/26/2013

1/16/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Notice of Submission, # 3 Proposed Order, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 12/28/2012)
194 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White re 193 MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 01/08/2013)
195 MOTION to Compel State Defendants to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion set for 1/30/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Affidavit, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Notice of Submission)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 1/11/2013 (gbw, ). (ok as set bfr Zainey) (Entered: 01/10/2013)
196 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Conference held on 1/14/2013, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 177 MOTION to Compel Defendants' Production of Documents; GRANTING 193 MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order, GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 195 MOTION to Compel State Defendants to Comply with Rule 30(b)(6) (jrc, ) Modified on 1/16/2013, no court reporter was present. (jrc, ). (Entered: 01/15/2013)
197 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk for 196 Minute Entry. Correction to reflect that no court reporter was present. No further action needed. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/16/2013)
198 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alejandro Cruz (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3801073) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
199 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Elizabeth Callahan (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3801101) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
200 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Thomas Kurland (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−3801150) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
201 ORDER granting 199 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Elizabeth L. Callahan for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/23/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
202 ORDER granting 200 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Thomas P. Kurland for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/23/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
203 ORDER granting 198 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Alejandro H. Cruz for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/23/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/24/2013)
205 EXPARTE JOINT MOTION to Amend Case Management Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas, John White (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 2/26/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 02/26/2013)
206 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 205 Proposed Rule 26(f) Discovery Plan. Filing attorney selected incorrect event. Correct event is Motion to Amend/Correct. Clerk took corrective action by changing the event. (gbw, ) (Entered: 02/26/2013)

02/27/2013 05/14/2013 05/17/2013 05/24/2013 05/29/2013 05/31/2013 06/03/2013 07/16/2013 07/19/2013 08/02/2013
08/02/2013

207 ORDER granting 205 Motion to Amend Case Management Order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
208 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 05/14/2013)
209 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/16/13.(jrc, ) (Entered: 05/17/2013)
210 Emergency MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for Rebuttal Expert Report by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 05/24/2013)
211 ORDER granting 210 Motion for Extension of Deadlines for State Defendants to serve rebuttal report. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/28/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 05/29/2013)
212 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 05/31/2013)
213 ORDER granting 212 Motion to Amend/Correct Case Management Order. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
214 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 07/16/2013)
215 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/17/13.(jrc, ) (Entered: 07/19/2013)
216 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Seal Documents in Connection with Briefing on Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas, John White, the Louisiana Department of Education, and the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 8/5/2013 (mmm). (Entered: 08/02/2013)
217 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order On Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, # 2 Proposed Pleading Renewed Motion for Class Certification, # 3 Proposed Pleading Memo in Support of Renewed Motion for Class Certification, # 4 Proposed Pleading Declaration of Eden B Heilman, # 5 Proposed Pleading Notice of Submission for Renewed Motion for Class Certification, # 6 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 1, # 7 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 2, # 8 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 3, # 9 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 4, # 10 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 5, # 11 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 6, # 12 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 7, # 13 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 8, # 14 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 9, # 15 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 10, # 16 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 11, # 17 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 12, # 18 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 13, # 19 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 14, # 20 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 15, # 21 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 16, # 22 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 17, # 23 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 18, # 24 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 19a, # 25 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 19b, # 26 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 20, # 27 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 21, # 28 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 22, # 29 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 23, # 30 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 24, # 31 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 25, # 32 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 26, # 33 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 27, # 34 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 28, # 35 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 29, # 36 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 30, # 37 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 31, # 38 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 32, # 39 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 33, # 40 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 34, # 41 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 35, # 42 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 36, # 43 Proposed

08/08/2013 08/08/2013 08/08/2013
08/08/2013 08/15/2013 09/09/2013

Pleading Exhibit 37, # 44 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 38, # 45 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 39, # 46 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 40, # 47 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 41, # 48 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 42, # 49 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 43, # 50 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 44, # 51 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 45, # 52 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 46, # 53 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 47, # 54 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 48, # 55 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 49, # 56 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 50, # 57 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 51, # 58 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 52, # 59 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 53, # 60 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 54, # 61 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 55, # 62 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 56, # 63 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 57, # 64 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 58, # 65 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 59, # 66 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 60, # 67 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 61, # 68 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 62, # 69 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 63, # 70 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 64, # 71 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 65, # 72 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 66, # 73 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 67, # 74 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 68, # 75 Proposed Pleading Exhibit 69)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
218 ORDER granting 216 Motion to Seal Documents. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/7/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
219 ORDER granting 217 Motion for Leave to File Memo in Excess of Page Limit. Hard copies to be delivered to chambers as stated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/7/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
220 MOTION to Certify Class, by Plaintiffs. Motion set for 10/9/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Declaration, # 3 Notice of Submission, # 4 Exh 1−7, # 5 Exh 8, # 6 Exh 9, # 7 Exh 10, # 8 Exh 11−13, # 9 Exh 14, # 10 Exh 15, # 11 Exh 16, # 12 Exh 17, # 13 Exh 18, # 14 Exh 19a, # 15 Exh 19b, # 16 Exh 20−22, # 17 Exh 23, # 18 Exh 24, # 19 Exh 25−29, # 20 Exh 30, # 21 Exh 31, # 22 Exh 32, # 23 Exh 33−41, # 24 Exh 42, # 25 Exh 43, # 26 Exh 44−47, # 27 Exh 48, # 28 Exh 49, # 29 Exh 50, # 30 Exh 51, # 31 Exh 52, # 32 Exh 53, # 33 Exh 54, # 34 Exh 55, # 35 Exh 56, # 36 Exh 57, # 37 Exh 58, # 38 Exh 59−61, # 39 Exh 62, # 40 Exh 63, # 41 Exh 64, # 42 Exh 65, # 43 Exh 66, # 44 Exh 67, # 45 Exh 68, # 46 Exh 69)(jrc, ) Modified on 8/8/2013 (jrc, ). (Attachment 5 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 6 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 7 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 9 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 10 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 11 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 13 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 20 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 21 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 22 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 25 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 27 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 29 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 30 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 31 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 32 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 34 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 36 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 37 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 39 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 40 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 41 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 43 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 44 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 45 replaced on 8/12/2013) (jrc, ). (Entered: 08/08/2013)
221 Request/Statement of Oral Argument by All Plaintiffs regarding 220 MOTION to Certify Class (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
222 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiffs counsel shall submit to the Court & defense counsel a list of any putative class members who believe that they have experienced violations of a nature that the systemic relief that Plaintiffs seek would have prevented. The deadline for Plaintiffs to submit these Individual Case Summaries to the Court is 9/9/13. Defendants deadline for responding to the Individual Case Summaries is 9/30/13; FURTHER ORDERED that in light of the foregoing reports, Defendants deadline for responding to the Motion for Class Certification is extended to 10/15/13, and Plaintiffs reply deadline is extended to 11/4/13. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
224 Individual Case Summaries re 222 Order by All Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 9/10/2013 (gbw, ). (Attachment 1 replaced on 9/10/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 2 replaced on 9/10/2013) (jrc, ). (Entered: 09/09/2013)

09/10/2013 09/10/2013 09/16/2013
09/16/2013 09/16/2013 09/29/2013 09/30/2013 10/15/2013 10/15/2013
10/16/2013 10/16/2013
10/18/2013
10/21/2013

225 Manual Attachment Received (Sealed Exhibits A & B) re 224 Individual Case Summaries filed by All Plaintiffs. (gbw, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
226 AMENDED ORDER FOR SEALING DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
227 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Supplement to Plaintiffs' Individual Case Summaries by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading, # 3 Notice of Manual Attachment)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 9/16/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 09/16/2013)
228 ORDER granting 227 Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Plaintiffs' Individual Case Summaries. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
229 PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENT to Individual Case Summaries pursuant to 222 Order. (jrc, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/16/2013: # 1 Exhibit) (jrc, ). (Entered: 09/16/2013)
230 Response/Reply by Orleans Parish School Board to Plaintiffs' Individual Case Summaries (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Stewart, Wayne) (Attachment 1 replaced on 9/30/2013) (jrc, ). (Entered: 09/29/2013)
231 Response/Reply by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White to 224 Statement of Facts, Plaintiffs' Individual Case Summaries (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B(Moog, Audrey) (3) Unredacted Document #231) (jrc, ). Modified on 10/1/2013 (jrc, ). (Entered: 09/30/2013)
232 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Orleans Parish School Board re 220 MOTION to Certify Class . (Stewart, Wayne) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
233 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Memorandum in Opposition by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Proposed Pleading Opposition to Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8, # 11 Exhibit 9, # 12 Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit 12, # 15 Exhibit 13, # 16 Exhibit 14, # 17 Exhibit 15, # 18 Exhibit 16, # 19 Exhibit 17, # 20 Exhibit 18)(Sneed, Maree) Modified on 10/16/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/15/2013)
234 ORDER granting 233 Motion for Leave to File Memo in Excess of Page Limit. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 10/16/2013)
235 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White re: 220 MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exh 1, # 2 Exh 2, # 3 Exh 3, # 4 Exh 4, # 5 Exh 5, # 6 Exh 6, # 7 Exh 7, # 8 Exh 8, # 9 Exh 9, # 10 Exh 10, # 11 Exh 11, # 12 Exh 12, # 13 Exh 13, # 14 Exh 14, # 15 Exh 15, # 16 Exh 16, # 17 Exh 17, # 18 Exh 18)(jrc, ) (Attachment 9 replaced on 10/16/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 11 replaced on 10/16/2013) (jrc, ). (Attachment 15 replaced on 10/16/2013) (jrc, ). (Entered: 10/16/2013)
236 MOTION to Strike 220 MOTION to Certify Class Putative Expert Reports by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. Motion set for 11/6/2013 09:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K Part 1, # 13 Exhibit K Part 2, # 14 Exhibit L, # 15 Notice of Submission, # 16 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) Modified on 10/21/2013 (gbw, ). (Entered: 10/18/2013)
237 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 236 MOTION to Strike 220 MOTION to Certify Class Putative Expert Reports. Attachment has duplicate description. For attachment, select either a category OR enter a description, but not both since this results in duplicate docket text. Clerk took corrective action. (gbw, ) (Entered: 10/21/2013)

10/22/2013 10/23/2013 10/25/2013 11/08/2013
11/13/2013 11/15/2013 11/18/2013 11/19/2013 11/22/2013 11/25/2013
11/26/2013 11/26/2013 11/27/2013 12/13/2013
12/17/2013 12/17/2013

238 ORDER Resetting Oral Argument on 220 MOTION to Certify Class for 1/22/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Deadlines set herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/21/13.(jrc, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
239 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Amend/Correct Case Management Order by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
240 ORDER granting 239 Motion to Amend CMO. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/24/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 10/25/2013)
241 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Katie M. Schwartzmann as Attorney by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Schwartzmann, Katharine) (Entered: 11/08/2013)
242 ORDER granting 241 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Katharine Murphy Schwartzmann for plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/12/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 11/13/2013)
243 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Individual Parent Declarations. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Heilman, Eden) (Attachment 1 replaced on 11/19/2013) (jrc, ). (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/19/2013: # 2 Unredacted Notice) (jrc, ). (Entered: 11/15/2013)
244 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 236 MOTION to Strike 220 MOTION to Certify Class Putative Expert Reports . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 11/18/2013)
245 Manual Attachment Received under Seal re 243 Notice. (gbw, ) (Entered: 11/19/2013)
246 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Response to Plaintiffs' Notice of Individual Parent Declarations by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Moog, Audrey) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
247 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White re 236 MOTION to Strike 220 MOTION to Certify Class Putative Expert Reports . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Moog, Audrey) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
248 ORDER granting 246 Motion for Leave to File Response. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/25/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
249 Response by State Defendants to Plaintiff's Notice of Individual Parent Declarations. (jrc, ) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
250 ORDER Resetting Submission Date on 236 MOTION to Strike Putative Expert Reports. Motion to be considered 1/22/2014 on the briefs. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
252 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Reply in Excess Pages by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading (Plaintiffs' Reply in Further Support of Their Renewed Motion for Class Certification), # 2 Declaration of William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., # 3 Exhibit 1 to Cavanaugh Declaration, # 4 Exhibit 2 to Cavanaugh Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 3 to Cavanaugh Declaration, # 6 Exhibit 4 to Cavanaugh Declaration, # 7 Exhibit 5 to Cavanaugh Declaration, # 8 Proposed Order)(Cavanaugh, William) (Entered: 12/13/2013)
253 ORDER granting 252 Motion for Leave to File Reply in Excess of Page Limit. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/16/13. (jrc, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)
254 REPLY MEMO filed by Plaintiffs re 220 MOTION to Certify Class. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit)(jrc, ) (Entered: 12/17/2013)

12/23/2013 01/13/2014 01/13/2014 01/15/2014 01/15/2014 01/27/2014 01/27/2014
01/31/2014 01/31/2014 03/12/2014 03/12/2014 03/19/2014 03/28/2014
04/02/2014
04/03/2014

255 ORDER Resetting Hearing on 220 MOTION to Certify Class : Motion currently set for 1/22/2014 10:00 AM is CONTINUED to 3/12/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey.. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/20/2013.(gbw, ) (Entered: 12/23/2013)
256 ORDER that by 1/31/14 counsel for the parties forward to the Court an editable copy of their respective memoranda (excluding exhibits) pertaining to the class certification issue in either WordPerfect or Word format. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc, ) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
257 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Class Certification by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Pleading, # 2 Proposed Order)(Sneed, Maree) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
258 RESPONSE/MEMORANDUM in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 257 MOTION for Leave to File Sur−Reply in Opposition to Class Certification . (Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
259 ORDER denying 257 Motion for Leave to File Sur−reply. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
260 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw John DiPaolo as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coco, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
261 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Matthew Sykes as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Coco, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/27/2014)
262 ORDER granting 260 Motion to Withdraw Attorney John K. DiPaolo. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/30/14. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
263 ORDER granting 261 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Matthew D. Sykes. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/30/14. (jrc, ) (Entered: 01/31/2014)
264 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Motion Hearing held on 3/12/2014 re 220 MOTION to Certify Class. Matter taken under advisement. (Court Reporter Vic DiGiorgio.) (jrc, ) (Entered: 03/12/2014)
265 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 3/12/2014. Post Argument memoranda due 4/14/14. Counsel to schedule a settlement conference with Judge Lance M. Africk, said conference to take place within 2 weeks. (jrc, ) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
266 ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 4/2/2014 09:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/19/2014.(blg) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
267 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on March 12, 2014 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Court Reporter/Recorder Victor DiGiorgio, Telephone number 504−589−7782. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/26/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 03/28/2014)
269 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Settlement Conference held on 4/2/2014. ORDERED: An additional Settlement Conference is set for 5/9/2014 10:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. The parties shall submit in camera status letters to the Court at least three days prior to the scheduled conference. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (blg) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
268 ORDER re 220 MOTION to Certify Class; ORDER that the deadline for filing post−hearing memoranda is STAYED pending the outcome of further settlement discussions with United States District Judge Lance M. Africk on 5/9/14. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/2/14.(jrc)(NEF: J. Africk) (Entered: 04/03/2014)

04/10/2014 04/21/2014
05/27/2014 06/27/2014 08/27/2014 09/30/2014 10/07/2014 12/04/2014 12/09/2014
12/19/2014
12/22/2014 12/22/2014 01/05/2015 01/08/2015
01/08/2015

270 ORDER: Settlement Conference RESET for 5/27/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk.(lag) (Entered: 04/10/2014)
271 CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on March 12, 2014 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Court Reporter/Recorder Victor DiGiorgio, Telephone number 504−589−7782. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/21/2014. (rsg) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
272 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Settlement Conference held on 5/27/2014. Parties to comply with deadlines as stated herein. Settlement Conference set for 6/27/2014 08:30 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/27/2014. (blg) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
273 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Settlement Conference held on 6/27/2014. Additional Settlement Conference set for 8/27/2014 09:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (blg) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
274 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Status Conference held on 8/27/2014. An additional Status Conference set for 9/30/2014 08:00 AM before Judge Lance M Africk. (blg) (Entered: 08/27/2014)
275 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lance M Africk: Telephone Status Conference held on 9/30/2014. Negotiations are ongoing. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk. (blg) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
276 ORDER Status Conference set for 12/9/2014 11:15 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/6/14.(jrc) (Entered: 10/07/2014)
277 ORDER status conference set for Tuesday, December 9, 2014, at 11:15 a.m. (central) shall proceed as a TELEPHONE CONFERENCE with the Court. Number and code herein. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/3/14.(jrc) (Entered: 12/04/2014)
278 Minute Entry for proceedings held 12/9/14 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held, 236 MOTION to Strike and 220 MOTION to Certify Class are dismissed as moot. Class Settlement Hearing set for 2/9/2015 05:00 PM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference set for 1/5/2015 10:30 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
279 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Consent Judgment, # 4 Exhibit 2 − Addendum A to Proposed Judgment, # 5 Exhibit 3 − Ex. A to Proposed Judgment, # 6 Exhibit 4 − Ex. B to Proposed Judgment, # 7 Exhibit 5 − Ex. C to Proposed Judgment)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 12/22/2014 to remove submission date (bwn). (Entered: 12/19/2014)
280 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 279 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment − Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk has removed submission date. (bwn) (Entered: 12/22/2014)
281 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 12/22/2014. (jrc) (Entered: 12/31/2014)
282 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 1/5/2015. (jrc) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
283 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
284 ORDER granting 283 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc) (Entered: 01/08/2015)

01/08/2015 01/09/2015
02/02/2015 02/02/2015 02/03/2015 02/04/2015 02/04/2015
02/04/2015 02/09/2015 02/27/2015
03/25/2015 03/25/2015 04/03/2015 04/08/2015 04/21/2015 04/22/2015 04/22/2015 06/12/2015 06/17/2015
06/19/2015

285 CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum A, # 2 Class Notice)(jrc) (Entered: 01/08/2015)
286 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Certify Class Settlement by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Order)(Coco, Jennifer) (Entered: 01/09/2015)
287 Objection to Consent Decree. (jrc) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
288 Objection to Consent Decree. (jrc) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
289 Objection to Consent Decree. (jrc) (Entered: 02/03/2015)
290 Amended Objection to Consent Decree. (jrc) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
291 ORDER 1) counsel for Plaintiffs will reach out to the parents who submitted the objections for the purpose of obtaining information to provide to counsel for Defendants so that the problems described can be addressed; 2) counsel for Defendants will contact the appropriate school authorities regarding the problems described and confer with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding a feasible solution; 3) By 4:00 p.m. on Friday, February 6, 2015, Plaintiffs' counsel shall submit to the Court a summary report regarding the status of the efforts being made to resolve the objecting class members' difficulties. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
292 Letter in support of Consent Decree. (jrc) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
293 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Motion Hearing held on 2/9/2015, granting 286 MOTION to Certify Class Settlement. (Court Reporter Karen Ibos) (jrc) (Entered: 02/10/2015)
294 EXPARTE/CONSENT Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment by All Parties. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Proposed Consent Judgment, # 3 Proposed Addendum A, # 4 Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 2/27/2015 to edit filers (bwn). (Entered: 02/27/2015)
295 ORDER granting 294 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/24/15. (jrc) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
296 CONSENT JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/24/15. (Attachments: # 1 Addendum A)(jrc) (Entered: 03/25/2015)
297 ORDER Status Conference set for 4/7/2015 03:30 PM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/1/15.(jrc) (Entered: 04/03/2015)
298 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 4/8/2015. (jrc) (Entered: 04/10/2015)
299 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION To Adopt and File Under Seal Supplemental Monitoring Procedures, by All Parties. (jrc) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
300 ORDER granting 299 Motion To Adopt and File Under Seal Supplemental Monitoring Procedures. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/21/15. (jrc) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
301 SUPPLEMENTAL MONITORING PROCEDURES. (jrc) (Entered: 04/22/2015)
302 ORDER Status Conference set for 6/17/2015 10:00 AM by telephone. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/11/15.(jrc) (Entered: 06/12/2015)
303 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 6/17/2015. The Court ORDERED the parties to confer once again on the selection of a Monitor, and to reach an agreement if possible by 4:00 p.m. tomorrow. The Court strongly urged the parties to jointly contact the candidates in order to present their respective concerns with each candidate. (jrc) (Entered: 06/18/2015)
304 ORDER the Court selects Mark A. Mlawer to serve as Independent Monitor in this matter. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 06/19/2015)

06/24/2015
06/24/2015
06/25/2015 06/25/2015 06/29/2015 07/21/2015 07/31/2015 09/15/2015
09/17/2015 09/18/2015 09/22/2015 10/08/2015 11/05/2015
11/20/2015 12/02/2015 12/07/2015 01/06/2016 01/19/2016

305 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw James E. Comstock−Galagan as Attorney by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
306 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Jerri Katzerman as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
307 ORDER granting 305 Motion to Withdraw Attorney James E. Comstock−Galagan. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
308 ORDER granting 306 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Jerri Katzerman. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc) (Entered: 06/25/2015)
309 ORDER state defendants provide $100,000.00 for monitoring costs. FURTHER ORDERED funds be dispersed only with prior concurrence of certain parties. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 06/29/2015)
310 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Initial Monitor Meeting held on 7/21/2015. (jrc) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
311 ORDER MODIFYING 296 Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
312 ORDER if an executed contract between the Independent Monitor and the State is not in place by 9/30/15, Plaintiffs' counsel, in consultation with Mr. Mlawer, will file their motion to enforce the Consent Judgment on or before 10/9/15. Defendants shall respond by 10/19/15, after which date the Court will either issue its ruling on the briefs or order counsel here for oral argument on the motion. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 09/15/2015)
313 ORDER Status Conference RESET for 9/22/2015 2:00 PM by telephone. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 9/16/15.(jrc) (Entered: 09/17/2015)
314 ORDER − IT IS ORDERED that the TELEPHONE status conference with counsel for the parties and the Court is reset for Tuesday, September 22, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. (central). Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(bwn) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
315 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 9/22/2015. Follow−up Status Conference set for 10/8/2015 09:30 AM by telephone. (jrc) (Entered: 09/24/2015)
316 ORDER cancelling status conference of 10/8/15. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
317 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 11/5/2015. ORDERED that the deadline to have a contract in place between Mr. Mlawer and the State has been extended to December 1, 2015, after which date the parties will move for appropriate relief. (jrc) (Entered: 11/06/2015)
318 ORDER Status Conference set for 12/2/2015 10:00 AM by telephone. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/19/15.(jrc) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
319 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Status Conference held on 12/2/2015. (jrc) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
320 ORDER Meeting with Independent Monitor set for 1/6/2016 10:00 AM before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 12/07/2015)
321 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: Status Conference held on 1/6/2016. (jrc) (Entered: 01/08/2016)
322 TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on February 9, 2015 before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Court Reporter/Recorder Karen Ibos, Telephone number 504−589−7776. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Recorder before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that

01/27/2016
02/29/2016 03/02/2016 03/02/2016 03/30/2016 03/31/2016 04/07/2016 04/08/2016
04/11/2016 05/06/2016 05/06/2016 05/10/2016 05/10/2016

date it may be obtained through PACER. Parties have 21 days from the filing of this transcript to file with the Court a Redaction Request. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/18/2016. (rsg) (Entered: 01/19/2016)
323 ORDER that on or before February 28, 2016, the State Defendants shall pay Mr. Mlawer $3,901.23 in settlement of their portion of the monitoring cost associated with Mr. Mlawers work from June to October 2015. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before February 28, 2016, the Orleans Parish School Board shall pay Mr. Mlawer $1,916.29 in settlement of its portion of the monitoring cost associated with Mr. Mlawers work from June to October 2015. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 01/27/2016)
324 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Tyrell T. Manieri III as Attorney by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Manieri, Tyrell) (Entered: 02/29/2016)
325 ORDER that the Clerk of Court send all future filings in this case to the Independent Monitor, Dale Bailey, by e−mail via Notice of Electronic Filing from the CM/ECF database. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/1/16.(jrc) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
326 ORDER granting 324 Motion to Withdraw attorney Tyrell T. Manieri, III. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/1/16. (jrc) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
327 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Counsel of Record for James Comstock−Galagan by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 03/30/2016)
328 ORDER granting 327 Motion to Re−Enroll James Comstock−Galagan as additional counsel of record for plaintiff. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 3/31/2016. (lag) (Entered: 04/01/2016)
329 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record by Louisiana Department of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Humphrey, Troy) Modified on 4/8/2016 (mmv). (Entered: 04/07/2016)
330 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 329 MOTION to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record . Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for hearing. Clerk has removed hearing date. ALSO, filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decidedby the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective action. (mmv) (Entered: 04/08/2016)
331 ORDER granting 329 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for Attorney Willa R LeBlanc for Louisiana Department of Education, John White. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 4/8/2016. (mmv) (Entered: 04/11/2016)
332 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Additional Counsel of Record by Louisiana Department of Education and John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Humphrey, Troy) Modified on 5/9/2016 to edit docket text (bwn). (Entered: 05/06/2016)
333 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear as Additional Counsel of Record by Louisiana Department of Education and John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Humphrey, Troy) Modified on 5/9/2016 to edit docket text (bwn). (Entered: 05/06/2016)
334 ORDER granting 332 Motion to enroll additional counsel Kathe R. Zolman for Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education and John White. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/9/16. (jrc) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
335 ORDER granting 333 Motion to enroll additional cousnel Robert Christopher Fruge for Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Louisiana Department of Education and John White. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/9/16. (jrc) (Entered:

05/11/2016
05/12/2016
05/12/2016 06/20/2016 06/27/2016 06/30/2016 07/12/2016
07/13/2016 07/14/2016 07/27/2016 08/01/2016 08/02/2016 08/11/2016
08/15/2016 10/12/2016 10/12/2016 10/26/2016

05/10/2016)
336 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION for Extension of Deadlines for submission of first IM report by Louisiana Department of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Troy Anthony Humphrey added to party Louisiana Department of Education(pty:dft).(Humphrey, Troy) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
337 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 336 First MOTION for Extension of Deadlines;***Name of attorney who electronically filed this document does not match name of signatory attorney on pleading. The attorney signature on the document must match the person who is electronically filing the document. The user log−in and password serve as the required signature for purposes of Rule 11 of the FRCP. No further action is necessary. (cg) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
338 ORDER granting 336 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc) (Entered: 05/12/2016)
339 Independent Monitor Status Report − June 3, 2016. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 1, # 3 2, # 4 3, # 5 4, # 6 5, # 7 6, # 8 7, # 9 8, # 10 9) (bwn) (Entered: 06/20/2016)
340 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION for Extension of Deadlines by John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Zolman, Kathe) (Entered: 06/27/2016)
341 ORDER granting 340 Motion for Extension of Deadlines. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/29/16. (jrc) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
342 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Krista Adler as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 07/12/2016)
343 ORDER granting 342 Motion to Withdraw Attorney Krista Dawn Adler. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (jrc) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
344 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Telephone Conference held on 7/14/2016. (jrc) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
345 ORDER that counsel for Defendants provide the Court with a written status report by 8/12/2016 as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/27/2016.(ajn) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
346 EXPARTE/CONSENT Ex Parte MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Kathe R. Zolman by Louisiana Department of Education. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Attorney Withdrawal)(Zolman, Kathe) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
347 ORDER granting 346 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Kathe R. Zolman terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/1/2016. (ajn) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
348 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record by Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)Attorney Candice Richards Forest added to party Louisiana Department of Education(pty:dft), Attorney Candice Richards Forest added to party John White(pty:dft).(Forest, Candice) (Entered: 08/11/2016)
349 ORDER granting 348 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record for John White. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/15/2016. (ajn) (Entered: 08/15/2016)
350 Order re Supplemental Monitoring Procedures Status Report dated October 7, 2016. (ajn) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
351 Independent Monitor Status Report re Supplemental Monitoring Procedures − October 7, 2016 (Attachments: # 1 Attachment) (ajn) (Entered: 10/12/2016)
352 SEALED Response/Reply by Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to 350 Sealed Document, 351 Sealed Document (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit)(Forest, Candice) (Entered: 10/26/2016)

12/02/2016 12/06/2016
01/05/2017
01/05/2017
01/09/2017 01/09/2017 05/25/2017
07/07/2017 07/21/2017 07/21/2017 08/16/2017
08/30/2017 09/06/2017 10/05/2017

353 SEALED SUPPLEMENT to 352 SEALED Response/Reply. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (ajn) (Entered: 12/02/2016)
354 Independent Monitor Status Report − November 7, 2016 by Dale Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Cover Letter)(jrc) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/13/2016: # 4 Supplement to Appendix B − as to Mildred Osborne Charter School, # 5 Supplement to Appendix B − as to Joseph A. Craig School) (jrc). (Entered: 12/06/2016)
355 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw William Schmedlin as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
356 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Elizabeth Callahan as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
357 ORDER granting 355 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney William F. Schmedlin terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey. (cg) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
358 ORDER granting 356 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elizabeth L. Callahan terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/6/2017. (cg) (Entered: 01/09/2017)
359 INDEPENDENT MONITOR STATUS REPORT May 18, 2017, by Dale Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Status Report, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B Table of Contents, # 4 Appendix B − Child Find documents, # 5 Appendix B − Related Services documents, # 6 Appendix B − Discipline documents, # 7 Appendix B − Enrollment Stability documents, # 8 Appendix B − Consent Judgment Protocols)(jrc) (Entered: 05/25/2017)
360 Independent Monitor Status Report re: Supplemental Monitoring Procedures 7/5/17. (jrc) (Entered: 07/07/2017)
361 CONSENT DECREE COMPLIANCE − Letter dated July 8, 2017. (ajn) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
362 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: On July 21, 2017, the Court convened a telephone conference call with the Independent Monitor team to discuss the areas of non−compliance identified in the recent reports. (ajn) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
363 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that by 8/28/2017, the parties shall each submit to the Court (with a copy sent to the Independent Monitor) a position paper, not to exceed three (3) pages in length, on the substantial compliance issue. A meeting between the Court and the Independent Monitor will be held in the Court's Chambers on 8/31/2017 at 10:30 AM. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a meeting between the Court, counsel for the parties, and the Independent Monitor, will take place on 10/5/2017 at 09:30 AM in the Court's Chambers before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/15/2017.(ajn) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
364 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the meeting between the Court and the Independent Monitor scheduled for August 31, 2017, at 10:30 a.m. is RESET for Wednesday, September 6, 2017, at 9:15 a.m. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 8/30/2017.(ajn) (Entered: 08/30/2017)
365 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: In Chambers Conference was held on 9/6/2017, with the Independent Monitor team, to discuss issues related to the July 13, 2017 Draft Status Report to the Parties. (ajn) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
366 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: In Chambers Conference with the Independent Monitor team and Counsel for the parties was held on 10/5/2017. (ajn) (Entered: 10/11/2017)

11/07/2017 12/01/2017 12/05/2017
12/06/2017
12/07/2017 01/25/2018
01/29/2018 01/29/2018 02/22/2018 02/23/2018
02/26/2018

367 SEALED ENTRY − Documentation pertaining to Fluency Plus, LLC. (ajn) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
368 SEALED ENTRY − Documentation Pertaining to Fluency Plus, LLC. (ajn) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
369 ***DEFICIENT*** EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jasmine Bolton for Plaintiffs (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−6513830) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Letter of Good Standing, # 3 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) Modified on 12/6/2017 (ajn). (Entered: 12/05/2017)
370 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice Jasmine Bolton for Plaintiffs (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−6517255) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit Letter of Good Standing, # 3 Exhibit ECF Registration, # 4 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 12/06/2017)
371 ORDER granting 370 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Jasmine Ariel Bolton. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 12/7/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Notice Pro Hac Vice Counsel) (ajn) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
372 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Jennifer Coco as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 01/25/2018)
373 ORDER granting 372 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jennifer M. Coco terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/26/2018. (ajn) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
374 ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall submit final responses to the Independent Monitor's recommendations by Monday, February 5, 2018. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 1/29/2018.(ajn) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
375 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Adriana Luciano by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
376 ORDER granting 375 Motion to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record, Attorney Adriana Teresa Luciano for Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, and Chanell Thomas. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/22/2018. (ajn) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
377 INDEPENDENT MONITOR STATUS REPORT of 2/22/18 by Dale Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Status Report, # 2 Appen A Summary Compliance, # 3 Appen A Links to SPED, # 4 Appen B Table Contents, # 5 Craig Mon Not Redacted, # 6 Craig Feb 2017 Agenda Redacted, # 7 Craig Sprin 2017 Child Find Mon Rep Red, # 8 Craig Sp 20−17 Mon Res Sum Red, # 9 Craig Child Find 17−18 CY ICAP, # 10 Craig Child Find Rel Ser ICAP Not, # 11 Craig Sprin 16−17 CF Comparison, # 12 Lake Area Mon Not Red, # 13 Lake Area Feb 2017 Agenda Red, # 14 Lake Area Spr 2017 Mon Rep Red, # 15 Lake Area Spr 2017 Mon Res Sum Red, # 16 Lake Area Child Find 17−18 SY ICAP, # 17 Lake Area Child Find ICAP Not, # 18 Lake Area Spr 16−17 CF Comparison, # 19 Wright Mon Not Red, # 20 Wright Feb 2017 Agenda red, # 21 Wright Srping 2017 Mon Rep red, # 22 Wright Spr 2017 Mon Res Sum Red, # 23 Wright Child Find 17−18 SY ICAP, # 24 Wright Child Find ICAP Not, # 25 Wright Spring 16 and 17 CF Comparison, # 26 Algiers Tech Mon Not Red, # 27 Algiers Feb 2017 Agn red, # 28 Algiers Spr 17 mon rep red, # 29 Algiers Spr 17 mon res sum red, # 30 Algiers rel serv ICAP not, # 31 Algiers rel serv spr 17 ICAP, # 32 Algiers Spr 16 and 17 RS comp, # 33 Intl mon not red, # 34 Intl Feb 2017 agenda red, # 35 Intl spr 17 mon rep red, # 36 Intl spr 17 mon res sum red, # 37 Intl rel serv 17−18 SY ICAP, # 38 Int rel serv ICAP not, # 39 Intl High Spr 16 and 17 RS Comp, # 40 Landry Walker mon not red, # 41 LW Feb 17 agnda red, # 42 LW spr 17 mon rep red, # 43 LW spr 17 mon res sum red, # 44 LW spr 16 and 17 RS COmp, # 45 Cohen mon not red, # 46

02/26/2018 02/27/2018 03/09/2018 05/04/2018 06/14/2018 06/19/2018 06/20/2018
06/21/2018 07/13/2018
07/18/2018 08/13/2018 09/14/2018

Cohen Feb 17 ag red, # 47 Cohen spr 17 mon rep red, # 48 Cohen sp 17 mon res sum red, # 49 Cohen Spr 16 and 17 disc comp, # 50 Intl mon not red, # 51 Intl fed 2017 ag red, # 52 Intl spr 17 mon rep red, # 53 Intl sp 17 disdc mon res sum red, # 54 Intl high spr 16 and 17 disc comp, # 55 Carver mont not red, # 56 Carver feb 2017 ag red, # 57 Carver spr 17 mon rep red, # 58 Carver spr 17 mon res sum red, # 59 Carver spr 16 and 17 enroll RS comp, # 60 Craig mon not red, # 61 Craig feb 2017 ag red, # 62 Craig Spr 17 mon rep enroll red, # 63 Craig Spr 17 mon res sum enroll red, # 64 Craig enroll relat serv 17−18 SY ICAP, # 65 Craig CF rel serv ICAP not, # 66 Craig spr 16 and 17 enroll RS Comp, # 67 Osborne mon not red, # 68 Osborne Feb 17 ag red, # 69 Osborne spr 17 mon rep red, # 70 Osborne spr 17 res sum red, # 71 Osborne enroll rel serv 17−18 SY ICAP, # 72 Osborne Enroll ICAP not, # 73 Osborne Spr 16 and 17 enroll RS comp)(jrc) (Main Document 377 replaced on 3/9/2018) (jrc). (Attachment 1 replaced on 3/9/2018) (jrc). Modified on 3/9/2018 (jrc). (Attachment 2 replaced on 3/9/2018) (jrc). (Entered: 02/26/2018)
378 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Eden Heilman as Attorney by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Heilman, Eden) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
379 ORDER granting 378 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Eden B. Heilman terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 2/27/2018. (ajn) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
380 INDEPENDENT MONITOR STATUS REPORT of 2/23/18 by Dale Bailey (Attachments: # 1 Status Report 2−23−28, # 2 Summary of Compliance Status 2−23−18, # 3 Links to SPED Prog Descr 17−18 SY)(jrc) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
381 ORDER regarding Status Conference. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/4/2018.(ajn) (Entered: 05/04/2018)
382 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey. Telephone Conference held on 6/14/2018. (jrc) (Entered: 06/15/2018)
383 EXPARTE/CONSENT First MOTION to Withdraw Candice Forest as Attorney for Defendants by Louisiana Department of Education, John White. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Forest, Candice) Modified referral/submission/text on 6/20/2018 (sa). (Entered: 06/19/2018)
384 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 383 First MOTION to Withdraw Candice Forest as Attorney for Defendants. **1. Filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decided by the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the District Judge. **2. Filing attorney should have selected 'Yes' at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?. Exparte/Consent motions are not set for submission. Clerk took corrective action. (sa) (Entered: 06/20/2018)
385 ORDER granting 383 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Candice Richards Forest terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 6/20/18. (ajn) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
386 INDEPENDENT MONITOR STATUS REPORT of 7/3/18 by Dale Bailey (Attachments: # 1 Status Report, # 2 Appendix, # 3 SPLC Monitoring Update Fall 2017, # 4 Child Find documents Fall 2017, # 5 Related Services documents Fall 2017, # 6 Discipline documents Fall 2017, # 7 Enrollment documents Fall 2017)(jrc) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
387 ORDER concerning status of the case. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 7/17/18.(jrc) (Entered: 07/18/2018)
388 INDEPENDENT MONITOR STATUS REPORT of 8/9/18 by Dale Bailey. (Attachments: # 1 Status Report, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B, # 4 Appendix C)(jrc) (Entered: 08/13/2018)
389 ***DEFICIENT*** MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Zoe M. Savitsky (Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 053L−7115211) by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. Motion(s) referred to Karen Wells Roby. Motion(s) will be submitted on 9/14/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Statement Declaration in Support of Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, # 2 Exhibit Certificate

10/02/2018
11/26/2018 11/27/2018 05/10/2019
05/13/2019
05/14/2019 05/24/2019 05/29/2019
06/20/2019
10/02/2019 10/03/2019 10/04/2019

of Standing of Zoe Savitsky, # 3 Exhibit Attorney Registration Form for ECF)(Luciano, Adriana) Modified on 9/17/2018 (ajn). (Entered: 09/14/2018)
390 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: A Status Conference, by telephone, was held on 10/2/2018. Counsel for the State and OPSB will forward to the Court and all parties a summary of the monitoring and support systems that those parties have in place. Schools are being selected for random monitoring in Fall 2018. The parties will share with each other the objections that they submit to the IMs in conjunction with the Monitors' draft reports. (ajn) (Entered: 10/03/2018)
391 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Victor M. Jones by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Luciano, Adriana) (Entered: 11/26/2018)
392 ORDER granting 391 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Victor M. Jones for Cassandra Berry, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, and Chanell Thomas. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 11/27/2018. (jeg) (Entered: 11/27/2018)
393 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Withdraw Brenda Shum as Attorney for Plaintiffs by Dale Bailey, Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Shum, Brenda) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/13/2019: # 1 Proposed Order) (mp). Modified text/referral on 5/13/2019 (mp). (Entered: 05/10/2019)
394 Correction of Docket Entry by Clerk re 393 Exparte MOTION to Withdraw Brenda Shum as Attorney for Plaintiffs. Filing attorney should have selected Yes at the question 'Is this an Exparte/Consent Motion Y/N?'before clicking the Next button. Additionally, filing attorney incorrectly changed 'N' to 'Y' at the question 'Is this motion to be decidedby the Magistrate Judge Y/N?'. This motion will be decided by the district judge. Clerk took corrective actions. (mp) (Entered: 05/13/2019)
395 ORDER granting 393 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff's. Attorney Brenda L. Shum terminated. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 5/13/2019. (ajn) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
396 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Counsel of Record Neil S. Ranu by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jones, Victor) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
397 ORDER granting 396 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Neilinder Singh Ranu for Cassandra Berry,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Kelly Fischer,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Rosezina Jefferson,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Jeanette Johnson,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Kimberly Jones,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Shelton Joseph,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Leskisher Luckett,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Nancy McSween,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Cynthia Parker,Neilinder Singh Ranu for Chanell Thomas. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on May 28, 2019. (mp) (Entered: 05/29/2019)
398 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jay C. Zainey: The Court held a Status Conference by telephone on 6/20/2019. The Court asked the IMs to provide an update on the issue of potential errors with the data sets used by the LDOE to select schools for targeted monitoring in the fall of 2017 and/or fall 2018. The Court thanks counsel and the Independent Monitors for their continued cooperation. (ajn) (Entered: 06/24/2019)
399 INDEPENDENT MONITOR REPORT of 9/10/2019 Regarding School Selection. (ajn) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
400 ORDER Status Conference set for 10/24/2019 9:15 AM by telephone with Judge Jay C. Zainey. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey.(jrc) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
401 EXPARTE/CONSENT MOTION to Enroll as Additional Counsel of Record Sophia Mire Hill by Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Leskisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, Chanell Thomas. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Jones, Victor) Modified text on

10/08/2019 10/17/2019

10/7/2019 (ajn). (Entered: 10/04/2019)
402 ORDER granting 401 Motion to Enroll as Counsel of Record for Attorney Sophia Marie Mire for Cassandra Berry, Kelly Fischer, Rosezina Jefferson, Jeanette Johnson, Kimberly Jones, Shelton Joseph, Lekisher Luckett, Nancy McSween, Cynthia Parker, and Chanell Thomas. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/7/19. (ko) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
403 ORDER RESETTING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE: IT IS ORDERED that the Status Conference BY TELEPHONE with the Court, is RESET for Thursday, 10/31/2019 10:30 AM (central) before Judge Jay C. Zainey. The Court will contact counsel to provide call−in information. Signed by Judge Jay C. Zainey on 10/15/2019.(ajn) (Entered: 10/17/2019)