DMS

REPORT

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 

STATE LOUISIANA 

DATE DECEMBER 22, 2020 

IDEA PART B 

CONTENTS

LETTER...................................................................................................................................1

ENCLOSURE............................................................................................................................3

DMS NOTICE .......................................................................................................................18

2019 RDA MATRIX ..............................................................................................................21
Letter

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

December 22, 2020

Letter

Honorable Dr. Cade Brumley

Superintendent 

Louisiana Department of Education

1201 North Third Street

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802-5243

Dear Superintendent Brumley:

The purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of the results of the differentiated monitoring 

and support (DMS) activities conducted by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special 

Education Programs (OSEP) during an on-site visit to the Louisiana Department of Education on

November 13–15, 2019. 

As part of the DMS process, OSEP conducts an organizational assessment (OA) of factors to 

identify States’ progress in meeting performance standards and complying with the requirements 

of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and its implementing 

regulations, the Education Department General Administrative Regulations, and the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal 

Awards. OSEP uses the information from the OA and an Engagement Decision Tree to make 

decisions about how it will engage with States over the course of the Federal fiscal year (FFY). 

The FFY 2019 DMS areas were: 1) Results; 2) Compliance; 3) State Systemic Improvement 

Plan; and 4) Fiscal Accountability.

On August 16, 2019, OSEP sent the Louisiana Department of Education’s DMS notice to the 

former State director, Ms. Jamie Wong.1 That notice provided a level of engagement of 

universal, targeted, or intensive for each of the four areas OSEP identified for DMS. The levels 

of engagement in the notice are based on a snapshot of the most recently available data in the 

corresponding four areas. The notice also identified the activities that would be carried out to 

address the factors contributing to the elevated need for monitoring and support in the two areas 

that were identified for intensive engagement — Results and Fiscal Accountability. We have 

attached a copy of the DMS notice for your convenience.

The enclosure describes the: 1) Background; 2) Monitoring2 Activity for each DMS area; 3) 

Summary; and 4) OSEP’s conclusion including Next Steps and Required Actions. Where OSEP 

issued findings of noncompliance with the IDEA requirements, you will find specific details 

1 Ms. Wong resigned as State Director following OSEP’s visit. The current Director is Ms. Kelly R. Peterson

2 Monitoring is broadly defined as including activities examining both compliance and performance issues, and 

encompasses traditional monitoring reviews and technical assistance activities
Page 2—Honorable Cade Brumley

pertaining to the basis for the findings, along with the respective citation(s); and the corrective 

action required to address each identified finding of noncompliance. 

We appreciate your efforts to improve results for children with disabilities. If you have any 

questions, please contact your OSEP State Lead, Bryan G. Grigg, at Bryan.Grigg@ed.gov or 

202-245-8107.

Sincerely,

Laurie VanderPloeg

Director

Office of Special Education Programs 

cc: Kelli R. Peterson, Assistant Superintendent of Equity, Inclusion and Opportunities

Enclosure

DMS Notice

RDA Matrix
ENCLOSURE

Background 

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has a Differentiated Monitoring and Support 

(DMS) system as a component of Results Driven Accountability to improve results for children 

with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). DMS is designed 

to help the U.S. Department of Education (Department) identify potential grantee risk and to 

assist OSEP in effectively using its resources to monitor State grantees. DMS addresses Statespecific and Entity3

-specific needs in the areas of results, compliance, State Systemic 

Improvement Plan (SSIP), and fiscal accountability by differentiating levels of engagement 

(LOE)4 and types of monitoring and support based on each State’s and Entity’s unique strengths, 

progress, and challenges in each area.

During OSEP’s November 13–15, 2019 on-site DMS Visit with the Louisiana Department of 

Education (LDOE), OSEP reviewed the State’s results data and fiscal systems under Part B of

the IDEA with a focus on the State’s implementation of the IDEA Part B requirements. In 

preparation for the visit OSEP reviewed the following: 

1. The State’s previous IDEA Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Review

(SPP/APR) and its State Systematic improvement Plan (SSIP) submissions

2. The State’s FFY 2019 annual application for funds under Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA);

3. The State’s policies and procedures related to local educational agency (LEA) allocations 

and subrecipient monitoring;

4. Evidence of the implementation of LEA allocations and subrecipient monitoring;

5. Information related to the implementation of IDEA Part B on the State’s website, related, 

including State policies, procedures, and guidance; and

6. Other pertinent information related to the State’s efforts to improve results for children 

with disabilities such as the State’s plan submitted to the Department under the Federal 

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and the State’s Preschool Development Grant 

application to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

While on-site, OSEP gathered additional information through interviews with—

1. Jamie Wong — State Director of Special Education;

2. Kristi-Jo Preston — IDEA Policy;

3. Angela Randall — Director of Monitoring;

3 States include each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Entities 

include freely associated States, outlying areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education.

4 As described in the cover letter, OSEP sent a DMS notice to all States. That notice provided a level of engagement 

of universal, targeted, or intensive for each of the four areas OSEP identified for DMS. The levels of engagement 

in the notice are based on a snapshot of the most recently available data in the corresponding four areas.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 4

4. Catherine Pozniak — Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal Operations and Federal Support;

5. Dortha George — Audit Manager; and

6. Nakia Jason — Federal Audit Supervisor.

During the visit, OSEP focused on the two areas in which the State received intensive levels of 

engagement: results and fiscal accountability. In our review of fiscal accountability, we 

determined whether LDOE was in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory 

requirements and included findings and required actions to correct noncompliance. In the results 

portion of our visit, we engaged in a collaborative discussion with LDOE around its work 

strategy to improve results for students with disabilities. The results section of this letter includes 

a summary of what OSEP learned based upon the interview and a review of relevant 

documentation, and recommendations for next steps. We do not include findings or required 

actions in the results area. In addition, OSEP did not examine the areas of compliance and of the 

SSIP, for which the State received a level of engagement of universal. However, because 

LDOE’s SSIP addresses the key results area of assessment, during the visit, OSEP and State staff 

discussed infrastructure improvement strategies and activities to support the use of evidencebased practices as described in the SSIP. LDOE identified strengths and opportunities to improve 

six infrastructure areas — governance, fiscal/funding, quality standards, professional 

development/technical assistance, data, and accountability/monitoring — and reported on 

specific activities to improve the State’s infrastructure. OSEP will continue to work with the 

State on these areas during regular phone calls and virtual engagement and provide universal 

technical assistance (TA) through National TA calls, webinars and documents posted on our 

websites.

Overview of Results

OSEP began implementation of its DMS process with notices issued to States’ Part B IDEA 

programs for a truncated period in April 2016 and for an annual period at the start of the Federal 

fiscal year (FFY) (or DMS cycle) beginning in October 2016. Louisiana’s level of engagement 

for the DMS area of results for each DMS cycle prior to this monitoring period were “targeted”

for the truncated period (April–October 2016) and “intensive” for the 2016-2017 and 2018-2019 

DMS cycles.

In examining results for States, OSEP draws upon different data sources, including data that is 

submitted through the data collections required under IDEA Section 618, and data that is 

submitted under APR indicators (IDEA Section 616). OSEP determines the LOE for results 

through the Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Results Matrix. This matrix uses IDEA 

Section 618 exiting data (graduation and drop out), rather than SPP/APR Indicators 1 and 2 

respectively, and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) performance data, rather 

than State Assessment performance reported in SPP/APR Indicator 3C. In addition, the RDA 

Results Matrix also considers the percentage of the 4th Grade students with disabilities students 

with included in the NAEP.5

5 For more information on the RDA Matrix, see How the Department Made Determinations, Part B, 2019. Also see 

the enclosed FFY 2018 RDA Matrix for LDOE.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 5

However, as reflected in the chart below, LDOE’s SPP/APR data has also indicated low 

performance in these areas. 

SPP/APR Data for Indicators 1, 2, and 3C

APR Indicator FFY 13 FFY 14 FFY 15 FFY 16 FFY 17

Graduation 

(APR Indicator 1)

36.70% 42.80% 44.30% 46.64% 52.50

Drop-Out 

(APR Indicator 2)

33.96% 27.61% 28.03% 28.54% 24.31%

Reading Proficiency 

(APR Indicator 3C)

36.98% 36.64% 38.21% 38.70% 34.03%

Math Proficiency 

(APR Indicator 3C)

40.32% 33.96% 36.06% 35.77% 33.25%

Data Source: SPP/APR 2013-2017

OSEP Results Summary

During the DMS visit, the discussion of results for students with disabilities began with LDOE 

personnel providing an overview of the State’s organizational structure, and a description of its 

general supervision activities that are specific to the monitoring and accountability processes

intended to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. 

LDOE described its monitoring process as one of “Continuous Improvement Monitoring.” The

January 2018 version of the State document, IDEA Monitoring — Frequently Asked Questions,

describes its system as follows:

[t]he Continuous Improvement Monitoring System includes an annual tiered ranking of 

local education6 agencies to determine what level of monitoring activities to assign or to 

suggest to each local education agencies, driven by a risk-based analysis process... The 

key indicators of risk are growth of students on performance on statewide academic 

assessments, graduation rate and dropout rate.”

Interviews with LDOE staff and a review of its monitoring protocols indicate that although 

LDOE uses performance issues to assign risk and select LEAs for on-site monitoring, LDOE’s 

actual monitoring activities are all focused on compliance issues and otherwise do not address 

the performance risk factors identified above.

7 When asked how LDOE addressed areas of low 

performance for students with disabilities, staff explained that the primary focus was on 

improving performance for all students, which have been historically low across all subgroups, 

including students with disabilities.

6 LDOE uses the term local education agencies, although IDEA regulations refer to local educational agencies.

7 Resources of LDOE’s special education monitoring, including the Frequently Asked Questions and monitoring 

protocols, are posted on https://louisianabelieves.com/docs/default-source/students-with-disabilities/specialeducation-monitoring.pdf?sfvrsn=a5319e1f_10.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 6

As outlined in a PowerPoint presentation staff prepared for OSEP’s visit, LDOE’s theory of 

change8 for improving performance for all students is as follows:

1. Start the work at a small scale with innovative educators through grants and pilots.

2. Encourage projects to grow to scale, through coherent and aligned incentives like funding 

and reporting.

3. Nurture and assist the expansion, through regional partnerships, external support 

organizations and strategic communications.

4. Codify change in policy after learning from pilots and achieving statewide scale.

5. Embed the change in school system planning process and statewide support structures to 

facilitate local implementation.

State staff discussed and explained the strategies currently being implemented to improve 

outcomes for children with disabilities, as well as the specific activities underway in the State to 

address low performance on reading and math assessments, graduation rates, and dropout rates. 

The LDOE described its approach to improving outcomes for students with disabilities through 

four strategies detailed in the LDOE strategic plan and State’s Every Student Succeeds Act

(ESSA) plan:

9

1. Early and Accurate Identification

2. High-Quality Instruction

3. Specialized Supports and Related Services

4. Coordinated and Effective Transitions10

As described by LDOE, these four elements are components of local school improvement plans 

identified for comprehensive and intensive support (CIS) based on ESSA criteria. Schools create 

improvement plans and submit them to LDOE for approval. Once approved, LDOE utilizes a 

network of technical assistance providers to work with CIS schools to implement their plans. The 

LDOE staff reported that network staff help drive district improvement planning, but plans may 

not necessarily include strategies specific to students with disabilities. Performance outcomes are 

low for all students in LDOE schools. Improvement efforts are frequently directed toward 

implementation of high-quality curricula and instructional strategies intended to benefit all 

students participating in general education settings. Local programs are encouraged by LDOE to 

8 A theory of change is generally understood to be a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a 

desired change is expected to happen in a particular context.

9 Section 8302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the ESSA, permits 

the Secretary to establish procedures and criteria under which, after consultation with the Governor, a State 

educational agency (SEA) may submit a consolidated State plan designed to simplify the application requirements 

and reduce burden for SEAs. Furthermore, an LEA is required to develop a plan for each school that the SEA 

identifies as needing comprehensive support and improvement, but the LEA has the freedom to identify the 

evidence-based interventions it will include in each plan. Likewise, each school that a SEA identifies as needing 

targeted support and improvement has the freedom to identify the evidence-based interventions it will include in 

its targeted support and improvement plan.

10 For more details on these strategies see: STRATEGIES FOR SUCCESS: A Guidebook for Supporting

Students With Disabilities.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 7

develop high quality plans based on resource analysis and needs assessments. Those that choose 

to adopt a recommended evidence-based practice from a list of pre-approved options developed 

by the LDOE and available through the TA network are rewarded with grants and other 

incentives to assist with implementation and evaluation. LDOE staff emphasized that it is a 

collaborative process between staff in special education, general education, and Federal Support 

and Fiscal Operations to identify and support parishes/schools. The identification process is 

based on overall performance data as well as the performance of students with disabilities. 

Assessment

Overall, LDOE’s efforts to improve assessment results for students with disabilities follows the 

model described below. By focusing on improving assessment results for all students in the 

State, LDOE believes results will also improve for students with disabilities.

In its SSIP, LDOE has described more specific strategies designed to increase English Language 

Arts proficiency rates on statewide assessments for students with disabilities in third through 

fifth grades.

11 In its FFY 2017 SSIP, LDOE noted that “[in] FFY 2017, while our overall state 

proficiency rate for students with disabilities dropped over four percent, our SSIP cohort 

proficiency rates remained constant and continued to meet established targets.”12 However, as 

indicated above, these strategies are implemented in a cohort of schools and not yet implemented 

to scale across the State. The use of a cohort in implementing the SSIP is a recognized strategy in 

engaging in system change work. However, in order to make an impact statewide on the 

proficiency of students with disabilities, LDOE will need to articulate, develop and implement 

scale up activities.

Assessment proficiency data for all students with disabilities in reading from FFYs 2013–2018

show a fluctuation of a few percentage points up or down each year but have been essentially 

flat. Math proficiency data during this period have declined from 40.32% in FFY 2013 to 

33.25% in FFY 2018. These data suggest that the State-level strategies to improve assessment 

proficiency for all students throughout the State do not appear to have had a significant positive 

impact on students with disabilities.

Graduation

As described by the State, LDOE is focusing its efforts to improve graduation rates for all

students. As pointed out by LDOE, the graduation rate with a regular diploma for students with 

disabilities as reported for Indicator 1 in the FFY 2017 SPP/APR was 52.50%, reflecting an 

11 In its FFY 2017 SSIP report submitted in April of 2019, LDOE identified three coherent improvement strategies:

(1) data-informed decision-making; (2) evidence-based literacy practices; and (3) continuous leadership 

development. Note that LDOE submitted its FFY 2018 SSIP on April 1, 2020 and it is currently under review. In 

this submission, LDOE notes that the FFY 2018 data reflects a redesigned cohort, making it difficult to compare 

the data.

12 FFY 2017 SSIP, pg. 36.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 8

increase of 16.8% over the FFY 2013 baseline data and a 5.86% increase over FFY 2016 data.

IDEA Section 618 exiting data, as seen below, also demonstrates improvement. 13

Bar Graphs Displaying Trend Analysis of Graduation Data from FFY 2013–2018

Source: IDEA Section 618 Data from FFY 2013–2018

Graduation Data from FFY 2013–2018

FFY Dropped out

Graduated with 

regular high school 

diploma Received a certificate

2013-2014 27.16% 48.31% 22.39%

2014-2015 28.03% 50.79% 19.09%

2015-2016 28.54% 54.65% 15.17%

2016-2017 24.31% 60.94% 12.53%

2017-2018 20.58% 69.52% 8.07%

Source: IDEA Section 618 Data from FFY 2013–2018

LDOE staff reported that one reason for this increase is a change in how Louisiana approaches 

pathways to graduation. They described two pathways that students may pursue in order to 

graduate with a high school diploma. Both options are available to students with disabilities. Act 

833, passed in the 2014 Louisiana legislative session, gives students with disabilities who have 

13 Source: U.S. Department of Education, EDFacts Data Warehouse (EDW): “IDEA Part B Exiting Collection,"

2013-14 to 2017–18. Data extracted from: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-datafiles/index.html#be. Percentages do not equal 100% due to not including the counts of children who died, 

graduated with an alternate diploma, or reached maximum age.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 9

persistent academic challenges, such as repeatedly failing state assessments due to their 

disabilities, the option to pursue an alternative pathway to a regular high school diploma. A small 

number of graduating seniors was eligible for the alternative pathway beginning in 2015 with full 

implementation reflected in the 2018 cohort of graduates. 14

OSEP’s Recommendations 

As described above, LDOE has identified issues with low performance with students throughout 

the State, including both students with and without disabilities. LDOE argues that its strategies to 

improve performance for all its students will also help students with disabilities. The steady 

increase in graduation rates for students with disabilities demonstrates that students with 

disabilities are improving in some areas. However, the continued low proficiency rates on 

statewide assessments for students with disabilities suggests the need for additional and more 

focused strategies for students with disabilities. Since LDOE’s SSIP is focused on improving 

assessment results (specifically for reading in third through fifth grade), one potential next step is 

to scale up the activities that appear to be successful for the SSIP cohort statewide, and across 

assessments. In addition, LDOE should consider incorporating a more specific focus on 

improving results for students with disabilities. LDOE currently includes results data in its risk 

assessment to determine which LEAs are monitored. A next logical step is to incorporate results 

discussions, and the development of improvement plans focused on students with disabilities,

into its monitoring process in order to focus on areas in which results for students with 

disabilities can be improved.

OSEP strongly encourages the State to increase oversight of improvement efforts and evaluate 

the effectiveness of initiatives intended to improve results for children with disabilities. We look 

forward to further discussions with LDOE regarding its efforts to improve results for students 

with disabilities in English Language Arts proficiency, Math proficiency, and graduation rates 

that includes the disaggregation of data specific to children with disabilities and the allocation of 

resources and technical assistance to support results for students with disabilities in LEAs.

Fiscal Accountability 

Background

OSEP’s monitoring activities, as described in both the Office of Management and Budget’s 

Uniform Guidance and the Department’s Grant Bulletin 14-06, involve a range of activities, 

including technical assistance (TA) activities and activities intended to assess whether a grantee 

is complying with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, including fiscal 

requirements for pass-through entities (see 2 C.F.R. § 200.331). OSEP’s fiscal monitoring 

activity for Louisiana focused on: 1) LEA allocations; 2) subrecipient monitoring; and 3) the 

timely obligation and liquidation of IDEA funds. The first two topics were explored with the 

State through OSEP’s LEA allocations and subrecipient monitoring protocols, which were 

14 The LDOE reported that the flexibility provided under Act 833 has allowed more students with disabilities to 

graduate within 4 years with a regular high school diploma. However, LDOE does not provide monitoring or 

oversight to LEAs on their implementation of the Act. Rather, the LDOE provides guidance and instruction to 

LEAs reiterating that the alternate coursework must align with state standards and be specific to the disabilities of 

the student consistent with supports delineated in his/her IEP. 
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 10

provided in advance to the State, and the third topic was addressed as a technical assistance 

activity during the on-site visit.

OSEP identified the need to conduct additional fiscal monitoring activities in the State due to 

elevated fiscal risk factors as described in OSEP’s 2019 DMS levels of engagement notice, 

issued in August 2019. The DMS area of fiscal systems for Louisiana was designated at the 

intensive level of engagement, based on a number of fiscal risk factors, including the size of the 

State’s IDEA 611 grant award, the State’s submission of Phase II late liquidation requests for 

both its 611 and 619 grants, and the fact that 60% of the State’s LEAs are charter school LEAs. 

While none of these three factors are necessarily indicative of noncompliance, they each elevate 

any State’s risk that key fiscal requirements will not be met.

In September 2019, OSEP provided LDOE with a list of fiscal and related documents needed for 

LDOE to demonstrate adequate monitoring activities; in early October, OSEP staff and LDOE 

staff held a call to review the list and develop the fiscal monitoring agenda; and on October 15 

and 16, 2019, LDOE submitted the requested documents. LDOE also submitted two additional 

documents on November 15, 2019, during the on-site visit, and some additional fiscal documents 

via email on January 14 and 15, 2020. 

LEA Allocations 

The IDEA Part B Section 611 and Section 619 funds are provided to assist States and, through 

them, LEAs in providing special education and related services to children with disabilities.15

States are required to distribute any Section 611 and 619 funds that the State does not reserve for 

State-level activities to eligible LEAs for use in accordance with the IDEA. A State’s allocation 

of IDEA Part B funds to LEAs, consistent with the correct formulas, is critical to ensure that 

IDEA Part B funds are used appropriately for the intended purposes. 

Legal Requirements

OSEP’s monitoring of Louisiana’s LEA allocations included testing six specific components of 

the LEA allocations process, to ensure that:

1. The State educational agency (SEA) distributes both IDEA Section 611 and Section 619 

allocations to eligible LEAs based upon the correct formula for calculating base 

payments. IDEA Sections 611(f)(1) and (2)(A) and 619(g)(1)(A);

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(a)-(b)(1), 300.815-300.816(a);

2. The SEA calculates LEA base payment adjustments under Section 611 and under 

Section 619 consistent with IDEA requirements. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(b)(2), 300.816(b); 

34 C.F.R. Part 76 Subpart H; December 2000 Nonregulatory Guidance on 

34 C.F.R. Part 76 Subpart H, titled “How Does a State or Local Educational Agency 

Allocate Funds to Charter Schools That Are Opening for the First Time or Significantly 

Expanding Their Enrollment?”

15 Section 611 funds are provided for the provision of special education and related services for students with

disabilities aged 3 through 21. Section 619 funds are provided for the provision of special education and related 

services for students with disabilities age 3 through 5.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 11

3. The SEA allocates remaining Section 611 and Section 619 funds, if any, to LEAs, 

including charter school LEAs, based on population and poverty, consistent with IDEA 

requirements. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(b)(3), 300.816(c) and (d);

4. The SEA allocates IDEA Section 611 and Section 619 funds through subgrants to eligible 

charter school LEAs that open or significantly expand their enrollment. 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(b)(2), 300.816(b), and 76.792–76.793; December 2000 

Nonregulatory Guidance on 34 C.F.R. Part 76 Subpart H, titled “How Does a State or 

Local Educational Agency Allocate Funds to Charter Schools That Are Opening for the 

First Time or Significantly Expanding Their Enrollment?”16

6. The SEA reallocates available IDEA Section 611 and Section 619 funds consistent with 

IDEA requirements. IDEA Sections 611(f)(2)(B) and 619(g)(1)(B);

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(c)(3), 300.817; and

7. The SEA allocates Section 619 subgrants to eligible LEAs consistent with IDEA 

requirements, particularly for years in which Section 619 allocations to States were below 

the 1997 appropriation level. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.810(b), 300.815, and 300.816.

Findings 

A. Base payment adjustments 

During the on-site fiscal review, the LDOE was asked to describe its procedures for making 

required base payment adjustments consistent with 34 CFR §§ 300.705(b)(2), 300.816(b), and 

34 C.F.R. Part 76 Subpart H. The information shared by the SEA, and OSEP’s corresponding 

review of State documents submitted prior to the visit, indicated that LDOE lacks procedures and 

practices for making base payment adjustments when a charter school LEA significantly expands 

its enrollment. LDOE staff explained that the budget analyst for each program office determines 

if a charter school LEA has significantly expanded, and that if the IDEA budget analyst 

determines there has been a significant expansion, then the population and poverty amounts are 

adjusted, but that the base payment is not adjusted. After the on-site visit, LDOE submitted 

revised allocation procedures in documents titled, IDEA 611 - Methodology with Processes and 

Procedures and IDEA 619 - Methodology with Processes and Procedures. The documents,

submitted on January 15, 2020, describe LDOE procedures for making base payment 

adjustments when a charter school LEA significantly expands, based on the State definition for 

significant expansion, in a manner consistent with the legal requirements.

Required Actions/Next Steps

Within 90 days from the date of this letter, LDOE must provide to OSEP documentation 

demonstrating that any charter school LEA that received less than the amount of Section 611 or 

16 Although the regulatory citations have not been updated to reflect the IDEA Part B regulations issued on August 

14, 2006, and December 1, 2008, the substance of the December 2000 Guidance remains applicable and is posted

on the Department’s Web site. (See http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/cschools/cguidedec2000.pdf.) See 

questions 79 and 80 regarding base payment adjustments for charter school LEAs that significantly expand their 

enrollment.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 12

Section 619 funds to which it was entitled in FFY 2018 and/or FFY 2019 was made whole, or a 

plan outlining how LDOE will make these charter school LEAs whole during FFY 2020 in 

accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705, 300.816, 76.791-76.793, and 76.796, and the 

Department’s December 2000 Guidance. Please note that the State may: (a) use any remaining 

FFY 2018, FFY 2019, and FFY 2020 Section 611 and/or Section 619 State set-aside funds; 

(b) use State funds17; or (c) make downward adjustments to over-allocated LEAs’ future 

allocations and upward adjustments to under-allocated charter school LEAs’ future allocations. If 

the State chooses either option (b) or (c), the State and affected LEAs must consider the impact 

on those LEAs’ ability to meet the maintenance-of-effort requirement in 34 C.F.R. § 300.203, 

based on possible changes to those LEAs’ expenditures for the education of children with 

disabilities using State and/or local funds. 

B. Reallocation of funds

During the on-site visit, OSEP staff asked LDOE about instances in which available IDEA funds 

had been reallocated to eligible LEAs. The State reported that IDEA funds had been reallocated 

when charter school LEAs had closed, either during the school year or at the end of the school 

year, and that LDOE had then redistributed their available funds among all LEAs in the State 

“according to the formula,” without determining whether the LEAs that received the reallocation 

were adequately providing special education and related services to all children with disabilities 

residing in the areas served by those LEAs.

Under the IDEA, if a charter school LEA closes mid-year after establishing eligibility for and 

accepting IDEA Part B funds, the SEA may: (1) reallocate the funds that have not yet been 

obligated or expended by the closed charter school LEA to other LEAs in the State that are not 

adequately providing special education and related services to all children with disabilities 

residing in the area served by those other LEAs;

18 or (2) retain those funds for use at the State 

level to the extent the State has not reserved the maximum amount it is permitted to reserve for 

State-level activities pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.704 and 300.812. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(c)

and 300.817.19

Based on the interviews with LDOE staff, OSEP concludes that when a charter school closes, 

LDOE is not reallocating funds in a manner inconsistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.705(c) and 

300.817.

17 If the State uses State funds to make under-allocated charter school LEAs whole, the State must demonstrate that 

those State funds are funds that those LEAs would not have otherwise received.

18 We note that it would be reasonable for the SEA to determine that those LEAs that are now serving the children 

with disabilities previously enrolled in the closed charter school LEA are not adequately providing special 

education and related services to all children with disabilities residing in the areas served by those LEAs due to 

their expanded enrollment.

19 See also, Question 46 in “Frequently Asked Questions about the Rights of Students with Disabilities in Public 

Charter Schools under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,” December 2016.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 13

Required Actions/Next Steps

Within 90 days of the date of this letter, the State must develop and submit to OSEP policies and 

procedures that demonstrate the SEA will conduct any reallocations of IDEA Part B funds in 

accordance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§ 300.705(c) and 300.817. In addition, due to the 

currently high number20 of charter schools in the State, it is important for LDOE’s procedures to 

include communication regarding the operational status of charter school LEAs to help ensure 

that grant closeouts, when required, are handled in a timely and appropriate manner.

Subrecipient Monitoring

Under the IDEA and the Uniform Guidance, SEAs are responsible for oversight of the operations 

of IDEA-supported activities. Each SEA must monitor its own activities, and those of its LEAs, 

to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that performance expectations 

are being achieved. Monitoring must cover each program, function, or activity. Subrecipient 

monitoring is at the core of the SEA’s general supervisory responsibilities and can help the SEA 

ensure that its LEAs are in compliance with IDEA and related requirements, as well as aligned 

with SEA priorities designed to improve results for children with disabilities. The purpose of this 

monitoring activity was to review the State’s compliance with fiscal subrecipient monitoring 

requirements.

Legal Requirements

OSEP’s monitoring included an examination of information related to each of the following 

components of LDOE’s fiscal subrecipient monitoring system:

1. The SEA ensures that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a 

subaward and includes required information at the time of the subaward. 

2 C.F.R. § 200.331(a);

2. The SEA evaluates each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, 

regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the 

appropriate subrecipient monitoring. 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(b);

3. The SEA monitors the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the 

subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, 

regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward 

performance goals are achieved. 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(d). Also see 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 

and 300.600;

4. As part of the monitoring activities described above, the SEA issues a management 

decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient 

from the pass-through entity as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(d)(3). The management 

decision must clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for 

20 For the 2017-2018 school year, LDOE reported that 126 of its 200 operational LEAs, or 60.0%, were charter 

school LEAs. The report was part of the EDFacts Submission, Directory C029, related to DG653 Charter School 

LEA Status. https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html. 
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 14

the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial 

adjustments, or take other action. 2 C.F.R. § 200.521(a); 

5. Depending upon the assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient, the SEA has policies 

and procedures that consider the monitoring tools set out in 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(e)(1)–(3);

6. The SEA verifies that every subrecipient is audited when required by the Uniform 

Guidance at 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(f); and 

7. The SEA considers taking the enforcement actions set out by 2 C.F.R. § 200.338 against 

noncompliant subrecipients as required under the Uniform Guidance at 

2 C.F.R. § 200.331(h).

Finding

During the on-site visit, LDOE staff reported that the Office of Fiscal Operations and Financial 

Support/Statewide Monitoring is responsible for issuing a management letter to LEAs with 

IDEA-related fiscal monitoring or single audit findings. A document entitled “Audit 

Requirements and Procedures,” submitted to OSEP by the State, includes language citing three 

requirements for pass-through entities from the Uniform Guidance regarding audit requirements, 

specifically the requirements at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.331(f)–(h). However, LDOE’s procedures 

document does not reference the requirement at 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(d)(3) to issue a management

decision for audit findings pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient according 

to the requirements for such decisions at 2 C.F.R. § 200.521(a). LDOE provided three samples of 

management decision letters or notifications from LDOE to districts with audit findings, and the 

corresponding close-out letters or notifications indicating completed correction. All three 

samples submitted by the State lacked a description of any appeal process available to the 

grantee, and two of the samples failed to clearly state whether or not the audit finding is 

sustained and the reasons for the decision. Both the description of an appeal process and 

explanation of the audit finding sustainment are required elements of a management decision. 

2 C.F.R. § 200.521(a). Therefore, LDOE does not consistently meet the requirements of passthrough entities and does not have policies and procedures that describe these requirements, and 

the SEA’s implementation of the requirements. Accordingly, OSEP has determined that the State 

does not have a system reasonably designed to ensure that LEAs comply with the fiscal 

requirements applicable to Part B of the IDEA, as required under 2 C.F.R. § 200.331(d), 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, and 300.600(e).

Required Actions/Next Steps

Within 90 days of the receipt of this letter, the State must submit to OSEP:

1. Revised State policies and procedures for fiscal monitoring, including LEAs’ correction 

of identified noncompliance and the SEA’s tracking of those corrective actions taken by 

LEAs, consistent with the requirements of IDEA, the Single Audit Act Amendments of 

1996 (31 U.S.C. §§ 7501-7506), and the Uniform Guidance; and

2. A copy of the correspondence in which the State has informed its State audit office that is 

responsible for conducting audits in accordance with the Single Audit Act and the 
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 15

Uniform Guidance, of this finding of noncompliance and OSEP’s required corrective 

actions.

With the FFY 2019 Part B SPP/APR, due February 1, 2021, the State must provide evidence that 

it has implemented these fiscal monitoring procedures.

Timely Obligation and Liquidation of Funds 

Background and History

As a result of an OSEP monitoring visit conducted in 2009, with a letter issued on March 5, 

2010, OSEP found that LDOE did not have procedures reasonably designed to ensure the timely 

obligation and liquidation of funds. 34 C.F.R. § 76.709(a) and 2 C.F.R. § 200.343(b). Although 

the specifics of that finding were related to the State’s handling of LEA subgrants, OSEP’s letter 

also included the following language: “Further, OSEP is concerned about the State’s continuing 

pattern of not obligating and liquidating all of its Part B funds in a timely manner ... We also 

strongly encourage the State to review and revise its procedures to help ensure that all Part B 

funds are timely obligated and liquidated.”

LDOE’s 2010 email response to the monitoring letter included the following statements 

regarding timely obligation and liquidation:

“Regarding the timely obligation of funds, the LDOE has instituted monthly Expenditure 

Reports detailing the available balances under all grants by sub-recipient. These reports 

are emailed to each recipient around the first week of each month. The LDOE will 

continue to emphasize prudent fiscal management policies with all sub-recipients 

including encouraging each sub-recipient to submit claims for reimbursement at a 

minimum of one per month.”

More recently, on multiple occasions since 2015, OSEP notified LDOE of balances in its Section 

611 and Section 619 grant awards indicating that funds were not obligated and liquidated in a 

timely manner. OSEP encouraged LDOE to ensure timely obligation and liquidation of the 

funds. Funds for both grant awards were fully liquidated for FFYs 2010, 2011, and 2012. 

Unliquidated balances for more recent years were as follows:
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 16

LOUISIANA’S UNEXPENDED 

PART B FUNDS FFY 2013 FFY 2014* FFY 2015** FFY 2016

PART B 611 $48,280 $357,381 $1,490,106 $18,932

PART B 619 $114,489 $1,232,101 $410,221 $0

*LDOE made a Phase 2 late liquidation21 request in 2019 for FFY 2014 funds; after approval, lapsed

fund balances were $0 (611) and $1,204,899 (619). 

**LDOE made a Phase 1 late liquidation request in 2019 for FFY 2015 funds; after approval, balances 

were $1,342,591 (611) and $346,191 (619).

On at least two occasions between 2015 and 2018, OSEP requested a conversation with LDOE to 

help identify why there were ongoing problems regarding their ability to liquidate funds for their 

intended purposes. OSEP explained that it would be helpful that the conversation include both 

program and fiscal staff/offices to discuss the day-to-day processes and procedures impacting the 

issue and to learn more about their policies and procedures around Section 619 subgrants going 

out, as well as overall fiscal procedures with an impact on obligation and liquidation. On both 

occasions LDOE staff told OSEP that there was no need to discuss this topic because the 

problem had been solved. It was after these requests from OSEP that LDOE submitted the two 

late liquidation requests referenced above.

State’s Description of Current Practices

During the on-site visit, LDOE staff explained the steps that it had taken to address previous 

problems in obligating and liquidating IDEA. During the visit, LDOE shared its root cause 

analysis of this issue and provided specific information about strategies and process changes 

made in 2019 to address the problems that had led to the need for the most recent late liquidation 

requests.

During the discussion, LDOE explained that the need for the Phase 2 Late Liquidation Request 

was a result of a key staff position becoming suddenly and unexpectedly vacant leaving “no one 

to send an alarm.” To improve the timely obligation and liquidation of funds LDOE took the 

following steps: 

21 Under the Department’s June 5th, 2007 Policy Memorandum, requests to liquidate U.S. Department of Education 

(Department) grant funds beyond the 90 days after the period of availability (late liquidation requests) are divided 

into Phase I requests and Phase II requests. A Phase I request can be considered by the principal operating 

component (POC) within the Department up to 18 months after the end of the Tydings period (i.e., 15 months 

after the end of the normal liquidation period). A Phase II request will only be considered under extraordinary 

circumstances and only the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) has the authority to approve or disapprove the request 

in conjunction with the Office of the Deputy Secretary, the Office of the Under Secretary, and the Office of the 

General Counsel.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 17

1. A structural reorganization designed to improve ownership of the functions; 

2. The implementation of monthly IDEA budget meetings inclusive of staff representatives 

from Special Education Policy, Appropriation Control, and Grants Management staff, as 

well as the Assistant Superintendent for Fiscal Operations and Federal Support; 

3. Changes were made in its financial system, reducing budget lines for State-level IDEA 

funds from 36 to two (Administration, and Other State-level Activities); and 

4. A review process of timely obligations and liquidations is now initiated in spring, instead 

of in the fall as was done previously. 

Recommendations/Next Steps

OSEP acknowledges the attention that LDOE has given to resolving longstanding problems 

regarding the timely obligation and liquidation of IDEA funds and recognizes progress made by 

the State. Given the longstanding nature of this issue, OSEP recommends the State continue to 

review its processes and further refine its written policies and procedures as appropriate to 

include references to pertinent statutory and regulatory requirements, and specific staff 

positions/office communications, roles, and responsibilities. In particular, given the issues that 

arose due to staffing changes, OSEP recommends that LDOE consider including multiple 

reviewers to ensure timely attention to these matters when personnel changes occur. OSEP is 

willing to engage in further technical assistance around this issue, or to refer the State to an 

appropriate technical assistance provider upon request.
DMS NOTICE

Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement Decisions:

Louisiana

2019–2020

This year we have selected four States for on-site visits as part of OSEP’s Differentiated 

Monitoring and Support (DMS) system. These selections were based on the relative number of 

intensive and targeted Levels of Engagement (LOEs) across all states. Your State has been 

selected for an on-site visit.

OSEP’s Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) system is a component of Results Driven 

Accountability. DMS is designed to identify potential grantee risk to the Department and to 

assist OSEP in effectively using its resources to monitor grantees. DMS addresses State-specific 

needs in the areas of results, compliance, State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), and fiscal by 

differentiating levels and types of monitoring and support based on each State’s unique strengths, 

progress, and challenges in each area.

DMS is a multi-tiered model for monitoring and providing support based on the principle that 

supports are first provided at a core or universal level to effectively address the needs of all 

States. Targeted monitoring and support are generally based on OSEP’s identification of 

common needs among multiple States. Intensive monitoring and support are reserved for those 

States with the most intense or complex challenges to implementation. 

OSEP has assessed States’ and Entities’ progress in meeting performance standards and 

compliance with the legal requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the 

Education Department General Administrative Regulations and the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. This information 

was used to help OSEP make decisions about a State’s or Entities’ levels of engagement for 

monitoring and support. 

The charts below specify your State’s level of engagement in each area — results, compliance, 

fiscal and SSIP.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 19

Results | Level of Engagement: Intensive

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

• Percentage of 8th Grade Children with 

Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

– 27%.

• Percentage of 4th Grade Children with 

Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

– 30%.

• Percentage of 8th Grade Children with 

Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress

– 18%.

• Percentage of 8th Grade Children with 

Disabilities Included in Testing on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

– 78%.

OSEP continues to make information and 

technical assistance (TA) resources available and 

provide universal support to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will offer to provide the State, in collaboration with OSEP’s technical assistance providers, 

intensive technical assistance and support in its work to improve the State’s data quality and child 

performance outcomes related to positive social relationships, skills, and knowledge. OSEP’s support may 

include establishing a schedule of regular contact, engaging in conversations to explore improvement 

activities, and discussing the progress and effectiveness of activities currently underway in the State to 

improve outcomes for students with disabilities. OSEP may also work with the State to conduct a root 

cause analysis of the factors that contribute to low results outcomes for infants, toddlers, and their 

families.

Fiscal | Level of Engagement: Intensive

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

1. The State's IDEA 611 award is between 

$100,000,000 - $200,000,000.

2. State submitted a Phase II Late Liquidation 

request for either 611 or 619 grants during 

the past year.

3. 32% or more of State’s LEAs are charter 

school LEAs.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will contact the State and discuss the level of engagement. OSEP may also request additional 

documentation from the State and collect additional publicly available information. Based upon 

discussions with the State, technical assistance or additional data collection may be conducted on-site or 

virtually.
OSEP DMS REPORT LOUISIANA | 2020 PAGE 20

Compliance | Level of Engagement: Universal

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

Factors are only listed when the level of 

engagement is targeted or intensive.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will provide universal support related to IDEA compliance.

SSIP | Level of Engagement: Universal

Factors Existing/Current Engagement

Factors are only listed when the level of 

engagement is targeted or intensive.

OSEP continues to make information and TA 

resources available and provide universal support 

to all States. 

New Engagement

OSEP will provide universal support related to the State’s SSIP.
2019 RDA MATRIX

Louisiana

2019 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix

Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination22

Percentage (%) Determination

61.67 Needs Assistance

Results and Compliance Overall Scoring

Total Points Available Points Earned Score (%)

Results 24 8 33.33

Compliance 20 18 90

2019 Part B Results Matrix

Reading Assessment Elements

Reading Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in 

Regular Statewide Assessments

85 1

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in 

Regular Statewide Assessments

82 1

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above 

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

25 1

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress

84 1

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

27 0

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress

82 1

Math Assessment Elements

Math Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in 

Regular Statewide Assessments

85 1

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in

Regular Statewide Assessments

82 1

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above 

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

30 0

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress

86 1

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

18 0

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress

78 0

22 For a detailed explanation of how the Compliance Score, Results Score, and the Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination 

were calculated, review "How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 

2019: Part B."
2 | P a g e

Exiting Data Elements

Exiting Data Elements Performance (%) Score

Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Dropped Out 24 0

Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Graduated with a 

Regular High School Diploma23

61 0

2019 Part B Compliance Matrix

Part B Compliance Indicator24 Performance 

(%)

Full Correction of 

Findings of 

Noncompliance 

Identified in

FFY 2016

Score

Indicator 4B: Significant discrepancy, by race and 

ethnicity, in the rate of suspension and expulsion, and 

policies, procedures or practices that contribute to 

the significant discrepancy and do not comply with

specified requirements.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 9: Disproportionate representation of racial 

and ethnic groups in special education and related

services due to inappropriate identification.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 10: Disproportionate representation of

racial and ethnic groups in specific disability 

categories due to inappropriate identification.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation 98.59 No 2

Indicator 12: IEP developed and implemented by third 

birthday

96.16 No 2

Indicator 13: Secondary transition 100 N/A 2

Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data 83.33 1

Timely State Complaint Decisions 100 2

Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions 100 2

Longstanding Noncompliance 1

Special Conditions None

Uncorrected identified noncompliance Yes, 2 to 4 years

23 Graduated with a regular high school diploma as defined under the IDEA Section 618 State-reported data: These students 

exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities 

are eligible. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As defined in 34 

CFR §300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect prior to June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative 

degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or general educational development 

credential (GED).

24 The complete language for each indicator is located in the Part B SPP/APR Indicator Measurement 

Table at: https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/17415