Pilot Study of Charter Schools’ Compliance with the Modified Consent Decree

and the LAUSD Special Education Policies and Procedures

Office of the Independent Monitor

Modified Consent Decree
June 5, 2009

Executive Summary

During the 2008-2009 school year, the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) initiated a pilot
study to examine the roles and impact of the District’s charter schools on its performance toward
achieving the requirements of the Modified Consent Decree (MCD) and compliance with federal
and state special education laws and regulations. The pilot was not intended to provide a
comprehensive review of the special education programs at charter schools, but rather to provide
a description of select indicators and features based on readily available information. To examine
these issues, the pilot was guided by the following research questions:

1. Do the District’s policies and procedures pertaining to charters promote compliance with
the Modified Consent Decree, and federal and state special education law?

2. Do the District’s policies and procedures promote equitable access and opportunity for
students with disabilities (SWD) for a free and appropriate education at a District school
of choice, such as charter schools?

3. Does the District demonstrate the organizational capacity to ensure the implementation
and oversight of its charter schools associated with the mandated activities of the
Modified Consent Decree and special education law?

4. Do charter schools present potential barriers or concerns related to the substantial

systemic compliance of the District’s special education programs and with the program
accessibility requirements under federal and state law?

To address these questions, the OIM conducted the following:

 A review of documents related to charter school policy and compliance with special
education law.

 An external review of such documents by Sue Gamm, Esq.

 Informal conversations/interviews with staff from the Charter School Division and
Division of Special Education.

 Walk through of four selected charter schools.

Highlights from the pilot are presented below:

6/5/2009 i
Charter School Policies and Compliance with the MCD, Special Education Law, and
District Special Education Policies and Procedures

To determine if the policies require compliance with specific elements of federal and special
education law and the MCD, a document review examined specific elements included within the
relevant policies. The review found:

 The documents contained direct language that articulates a charter school’s obligations
for complying with the MCD, special education law, and District’s special education
policies and procedures.

 The review noted several areas that contained thorough descriptions of the charters’
responsibilities related to compliance with special education law, such as: the
documentation of special education services, complaint response and due process.

 Some areas identified as requiring additional information and/or clarification to ensure

compliance include: Child Find and Assessment; Discipline and Expulsion; Governance;
and, Access Compliance.

 Despite the clarity within the documentation that charters must adhere and comply with
the District’s special education policies and procedures, several challenges appear to
present barriers to achieve such compliance.

Enrollment of Students with Disabilities at Charter Schools

The LAUSD has 148 charter schools which serve approximately 58,000 students. This represents
approximately 15% of the District’s schools and 8% of its student population. Enrollment data is
important when identifying whether a charter school’s policies promote equitable access for
SWD. If the population of SWD attending charters is proportionate to that attending the District
Operated (DO) schools, it could be indicative of equitable access. Conversely, if differences
exist, it could be concluded that potential biases exist.

During the 2008-2009 school year:

 SWD attending charter schools made up 7.6% of the overall charter student population,
while SWD consisted of 11.3% of the overall student population attending DO schools
which indicates that SWD are disproportionately under-enrolled at charter schools.

 Students with low incidence disabilities attended charters representing 1.11% of the total
charter enrollment, while students with low incidence disabilities made up 3.09% of the
DO school population of SWD. Based on this, the relative risk ratio for students with low
incidence disabilities to be enrolled in charter schools is 0.36, which means that students
with low incidence disabilities enrolled at LAUSD charters are significantly under-
represented.

 Differences in the enrollment of SWD were noted between affiliated, independent

conversions and independent start-ups. These differences may be attributed to the
affiliated and conversion schools previous standing as a DO school.
6/5/2009 ii
Policies and Procedures for the Recruitment, Enrollment and Retention of SWD at Charter
Schools

Some of the areas within these policies that may be contributing to the disproportionate
enrollment of SWD at charters may be related to the following processes: preference for
petitioners that provide a comprehensive learning experience for students that are academically
low-achieving; identification of the demographic target population intended to serve; recruitment
plan for SWD; lottery/selection process for SWD; and, enrollment procedures of SWD. The
review found:

 A lack of clarity or absence of preferences for schools that provide a comprehensive

learning experience for a traditionally academically low-achieving group of students
(students with disabilities), during the review process for the establishment of charters.

 Both the new charter application and the initial screening matrix (checklist) sections did
not include nor require any reference to SWD in the identification of the schools
demographic subgroups.

 Neither the application description, supplemental education program description, nor the
Checklist addressed the petitioner’s anticipated recruitment of SWD.

 Several areas of concern within the lottery/selection process such as: the absence of a
uniform application for the enrollment applications utilized by schools, and a lack of
specificity of the role and oversight assumed by the District within the lottery selection.

 The absence of guidance of the LAUSD’s authority to require charter schools to expand
its provision of special education services when the District believes that doing so would
enable a student to be appropriately educated in that school.

Availability of Programming and Services

 During the 2008-2009 school year, 12 of 148 (8.1%) charter schools offered a special day
program as an option for serving SWD. In contrast, 87% of DO schools provided this
same program option. Collectively, the lack of such programs indicates a
disproportionate availability of special education services offered at charters.

 The disproportionate availability of such programs may indicate a lack of oversight and
responsibility by the District to ensure the equitable access to attend charter schools for
SWD.

 The charter application lacks clarity for independent start-up charters on its obligations to
provide transportation as a related service to SWD. This may be in violation of IDEA
regulations particularly considering that the majority of charter schools do not offer any
type of transportation service.

6/5/2009 iii
Accountability, Monitoring and Oversight of the MCD, and Special Education Compliance

Considering the different governance structure of charters, the organizational processes in place
at charters to promote the implementation of the MCD, the LAUSD special education policies
and procedures, and compliance with IDEA were examined. The pilot noted:

 Differences between charter schools and DO schools in the dissemination and oversight
of the implementation of MCD Progress Reports, Targeted Strategy Plans and MCD
Accountability Plan.

 Challenges in differences within the line authority for holding charters accountable such
as limitations with holding independent charter school employees accountable since they
are not LAUSD employees.

 That the Division of Special Education is in a unique position from other District
departments as the only unit with direct policy implications and interaction with charter
schools that influence day-to-day operations.

 The Charter School Division maintains a primary function of a facilitative role, with
minimal authority to hold charters and its employees accountable.

 The District provides opportunities for charters to participate in the trainings to develop
the necessary capacity to implement the requirements of the MCD and District’s special
education policy. These trainings appear to be minimally attended, possibly because the
trainings are optional.

 Minimal compliance with the requirement to fully utilize the Welligent IEP system,
particularly, the limited use of the Welligent service tracking feature.

 Differences in modes of communication for charters which primarily rely on email.

Charters do not have access to Inside LAUSD, which contains features to distribute
special education policy updates, bulletins, and memorandums.

Substantial Systemic Compliance with IDEA and the MCD

The MCD consists of performance outcomes that aim to improve the District’s systemic
compliance with IDEA and the MCD. To examine the impact of charter schools’ on the
District’s substantial systemic compliance with the MCD, special education law and federal
program accessibility requirements, the pilot found:

 That charter schools are not meeting the MCD target of the 60-day timeline and may
imply a negative impact on the substantial systemic compliance of the District to
complete timely initial evaluations.

 Potential systemic compliance issue with conducting annual IEP meetings in a timely
manner as both charter schools (29.5%) and DO schools (19.5%) had overdue IEP
meetings.

6/5/2009 iv
  Charters present a significant problem in the District’s ability to ensure the delivery of
special education services. Approximately 50% of all charters are not using the Welligent
service tracking log feature, while 24.6% showed evidence of partial logs.

 The walk-through found three of four schools with overall program accessibility, while
demonstrating a number of non-compliant ADA items. The fourth school was non-
accessible.

6/5/2009 v
 Pilot Study of Charter Schools’ Compliance with the Modified Consent Decree
and the LAUSD Special Education Policies and Procedures

Office of the Independent Monitor

Modified Consent Decree
June 5, 2009

I. Introduction

The Chanda Smith Modified Consent Decree (MCD) is a federal class-action settlement
agreement that requires the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to address and
improve its systemic compliance with special education law. Initiated in 1993 and modified in
2003, the agreement charges the federally appointed independent court monitor with the
determination to disengage the LAUSD from court oversight upon achieving compliance with
the requirements of the MCD and special education law.

The MCD clearly delineates the requirements the District must meet in order to be disengaged
from court oversight. To summarize these requirements, the Independent Monitor may disengage
the District upon the following 1 :

The District has achieved each of the outcomes in accordance with Paragraph 87 above and,
in the Independent Monitor’s judgment the District’s special education program has no
systemic problems that prevent substantial compliance with applicable federal special
education laws and regulations.

The Independent Monitor has certified that the District has entered into binding
commitments to expend the $67.5 million dollars required by Section 10 of this
Modified Consent Decree and, in the Independent Monitor’s judgment, the District has no
systemic program accessibility problems that prevent substantial compliance with the
program accessibility requirements of federal special education laws and regulations.

The MCD also states that this agreement is “binding on all public schools of the District,
including, but not limited to, charter schools, alternative schools, charter complexes, magnet
schools and to any schools formed or approved in the future by the District.”

II. Background of Charter Schools and Terms

The growth of charter schools has continued to evolve since the school reform efforts of the ‘80s
and ‘90s to expand school choice options. Charter schools changed the landscape of the
traditional structure of school choice by functioning under state charter statutes and providing a
higher level of independence than options aligned with the public school system, such as magnet
schools (Rhim, Ahearn & Lange, 2007). The charter model emphasized increased autonomy and
freedom from district mandates, coupled with an increased accountability from charter contracts
and parental choice, in order to foster the creation of new and innovating schools that would
drive existing public schools to improve and compete for students (p. 50).

1
To view all of the requirements necessary for disengagement, see MCD.

6/5/2009 1
The LAUSD Board of Education Charter Policy (2002) reflects this framework and the
legislative intent outlined by California Charter Act Law of 1992 which states:

47601. It is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this part, to provide opportunities for
teachers, parents, pupils, and community members to establish and maintain schools that
operate independently from the existing school district structure, as a method to accomplish
all of the following:

(a) Improve pupil learning.

(b) Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis on expanded learning
experiences for pupils who are identified as academically low achieving.
(c) Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods.
(d) Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be
responsible for the learning program at the school site.
(e) Provide parents and pupils with expanded choices in the types of educational
opportunities that are available within the public school system.
(f) Hold the schools established under this part accountable for meeting measurable pupil
outcomes, and provide the schools with a method to change from rule-based to
performance-based accountability systems.
(g) Provide vigorous competition within the public school system to stimulate continual
improvements in all public schools.

Consistent with the legislative intent, the Board of Education’s policy promotes the approval of
charter schools that increase learning opportunities for all students and expand schools of choice.

In the LAUSD, charter schools are established in two ways. Petitioners may initiate an
independent charter as a “start-up,” meaning that the school is being established from the
ground-up. Petitioners may also be granted charter status to existing District Operated (DO)
schools that petition to convert to charters. These schools are referred to as “conversion” charters
and may petition to convert to either “independent” or “affiliated” status. These options represent
the three charter “types” of the LAUSD and present some differing characteristics.

For example, independent charter schools operate independent of the LAUSD policies and
procedures that govern its DO schools. In addition, independent charters may petition to be the
exclusive employer of its employees, and its employees are not considered LAUSD personnel.
Independent charters are recognized by the State as their own Local Education Agency (LEA)
for certain purposes and may be either locally or directly funded 2 . For the purpose of special
education, charters are deemed public schools of the District and part of the LAUSD Special
Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) (p.7).

Affiliated charters are semi-autonomous schools that operate similar to DO schools with respect
to its policies and procedures. Affiliated charters may have some flexibility in areas related to the
instructional program, mission and vision. These schools are not considered LEAs and its
employees are LAUSD employees.

2
LAUSD Draft Charter Schools Policy, 2009.

6/5/2009 2
A primary difference between independent start-ups and conversion charter (affiliated or
independent) schools is that conversion schools have already established instructional programs,
special education programs and services, student populations and school site facilities.

The governance and accountability structure also varies for charter schools and by charter type.
For instance, independent charters are afforded autonomy from District policies and governance
structure. Independent charter schools are governed by a board of directors which functions
much like the Board of Education, responsible for developing policy and oversight of its
implementation. While independent charters are not subject to any direct-line authority from the
LAUSD, they are monitored by the Charter Schools Division (CSD). The CSD’s primary
responsibilities include facilitating and coordinating the new and renewal petition process, and
overseeing and monitoring the charter school’s obligations and responsibilities as stipulated
within their respective charter. The CSD also recommends to the Board of Education which
petitions should be approved, renewed, revoked or denied. However, the CSD does not have any
direct-line authority of an independent charter school’s personnel or its board of directors.

District operated schools follow a direct-line authority of the local district structure which goes
through the local district superintendent, directors and site principal. While affiliated charters
share this same governance structure and line authority, independent charters do not.

III. Rationale of Pilot Study

Currently, the LAUSD has 148 charter schools which serve approximately 58,000 students. This
represents approximately 15% of the District’s schools and 8% of its student population. Of
these schools, 136 are independent charters, while 12 are affiliated charters.

During the 2008-2009 school year, the Office of the Independent Monitor (OIM) initiated a pilot
study to examine the roles and impacts of the District’s charter schools on its performance
toward achieving the requirements of the MCD and compliance with federal and state special
education laws and regulations. The pilot aimed to broadly examine compliance with federal and
state special education law, as well as the District’s special education policies and procedures.
The pilot was not intended to provide a comprehensive review of the special education programs
at charter schools, but rather to provide a description of select indicators and features based on
readily available information.

The pilot was designed to determine if potential areas of non-compliance exist collectively for
charter schools that may affect the District’s overall substantial systemic compliance. If
identified, such areas of non-compliance may present potential barriers for the District to achieve
disengagement from the MCD.

To demonstrate substantial systemic compliance, the District must show evidence of the
necessary organizational capacity to effectively implement and monitor its special education
programs. The issue of organizational capacity may have different implications for charter
schools since these schools are afforded higher levels of autonomy and flexibility from District
policy and oversight. For this reason, the pilot examined several indicators to determine the
effectiveness of the District’s organizational capacity to effectively implement and monitor the
requirements of the MCD, special education law, and its special education policies and
procedures at charter schools.

6/5/2009 3
The pilot study sought to examine if non-compliance with the MCD, special education law and
District policies and procedures existed. It was guided by the following research questions:

1. Do the District’s policies and procedures pertaining to charters promote compliance

with the Modified Consent Decree, and federal and state special education law?

2. Do the District’s policies and procedures promote equitable access and opportunity
for students with disabilities (SWD) for a free and appropriate education at a District
school of choice, such as charter schools?

3. Does the District demonstrate the organizational capacity to ensure the

implementation and oversight of its charter schools associated with the mandated
activities of the Modified Consent Decree and special education law?

4. Do charter schools present potential barriers or concerns related to the substantial

systemic compliance of the District’s special education programs and with the
program accessibility requirements under federal and state law?

IV. Methods

To examine these issues, the OIM conducted the following data collection activities:

1. An independent and internal review of the District’s policies and procedures associated
with the compliance of the MCD and special education laws at charter schools.

2. An independent and internal review of related documents pertaining to the petition and
approval of new and existing (renewal) charters.

3. A review of District data associated with the MCD outcomes and special education
programs.

4. Interviews/conversations with District personnel from the Division of Special Education

and Charter Schools Division including:

 Ylla De Leon, Coordinator, Charter/Private Schools, Division of Special

Education
 Sharon Bradley, Advisor, Charter Schools Division
 Jose Cole-Gutierrez, Executive Director, Charter Schools Division

5. Site visits to conduct spot checks of compliance with the program accessibility
requirements of federal and state law (ADA and Section 504).

The following documents were reviewed as part of this pilot.

 Los Angeles Unified School District Charter School Application Description

(Application Description)
 Demographic Information for Prospective Site

6/5/2009 4
  Charter Schools Guideline Checklist – Initial Screening
 Charter School Renewal Components
 LAUSD Charter Schools Division Renewal Criteria and Findings
 Required and Recommended Petition Language, including Special Education Program
 Guidance for Enrollment of Students with Disabilities
 LAUSD Power Point presentation by Donnalyn Jacque-Anton, Associate Superintendent
and Didi Nubla, Deputy Budget Director on November 20, 2008
 Relevant California Education Code and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) provisions relevant to this issue
 Policy for Charter Schools, approved by the LAUSD Board of Education, June 25, 2002
 March 24, 2009 board reports for denial of renewal petitions for Charter of Los Angeles
International Charter High School and Opportunities Unlimited Charter High School and
to approve Equitas Academy Charter School
 Working Draft: Renewal Criteria and Findings & Refined Scoring System
 March 17, 2009, Audit Report: Approval Process for New Charter Schools, Office of the
Inspector General
 Comprehensive site review tools
 California Charter Schools Act 1992
 The Field Act and Public School Construction: A 2007 Perspective, California Seismic
Safety Commission

To obtain a legal perspective, the OIM contracted Sue Gamm, Esq. to conduct a review of the
District’s charter policies and procedures to identify areas of compliance with applicable special
education law and the MCD. Gamm is a former senior school district administrator, Federal
official and attorney with the Office of Civil Rights with expansive knowledge and experience
with issues related to special education and charter school organizations. Her report, which
includes a brief biography, is provided (Appendix A).

Data collection activities occurred between, November 2008 through May 2009. The pilot
study’s findings are organized to correspond with the four research questions.

V. Findings

Question #1

Do the District’s policies and procedures pertaining to charters promote compliance with the
Modified Consent Decree, and federal and state special education law?

This question focused on identifying whether the policies complied with the following:

 Modified Consent Decree

 Federal and State Special Education and Charter School Law
 District special education policies and procedures

To determine if the District’s policies and procedures pertaining to charters were compliant with
the obligations of the MCD, federal and state laws and regulation, and the LAUSD special
education policies and procedures, relevant documents were reviewed, including:

6/5/2009 5
  New and renewal petition/application and checklists
 Special education boilerplate language
 Documents related to school facilities

This section provides highlights of the findings from the review of these documents conducted
by Gamm and the OIM.

Compliance with the MCD and Federal and State Special Education Law

To determine if the policies comply with the MCD, it is necessary to identify direct language
which requires charters to comply. Therefore, this acknowledgement will articulate the
expectation that for the purpose of the MCD, charter schools are District schools and subject to
the same mandates, oversight and accountability of the MCD and applicable special education
laws.

The document review found direct language within the application documents that articulate
charter schools responsibilities for complying with the MCD. The inclusion of this direct
language supports the premise that for the purpose of the MCD, charters are accountable to the
same standards as DO schools.

To determine if the policies require charter schools to comply with federal and state special
education law, relevant documents were reviewed to identify such direct language. The
document review found evidence of such language.

To determine if the policies require compliance with specific elements of federal and special
education law and the MCD, a document review examined specific elements included within the
relevant policies. In her review, Gamm noted several areas that contained thorough descriptions
of the charters’ responsibilities related to compliance regarding the documentation of special
education services, complaint response and due process to contain many useful elements (p.4).

Areas identified as requiring additional information and/or clarification to ensure compliance are
discussed below. For the purpose of discussion, only general descriptions of selected findings are
included.

Child Find and Assessment

Gamm found a discrepancy between the language included in the charter petition application and
the federal and state provisions of special education law. Specifically, the language in the special
education program description states:

The special education program description states that the charter will conduct special
education search and find activities for private school students residing in its pre-charter
attendance areas in accordance with state, federal and District policy.

Gamm notes that the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and state provision
requirements pertain to the school district in which the private school is located, regardless of
whether the student resides in that district.

6/5/2009 6
In addition, she found the area related to the referral and assessment of students with disabilities
to require additional clarification. The program description within the application states that the
charter school will:

Identify and refer students with disabilities who demonstrate early signs of academic, social
or behavioral difficulty that may require assessments for special education eligibility and
placement in a special education program.

Gamm indicates that this guidance may not be aligned with the language and intent of IDEA and
state provisions associated with Child Find. The law requires the referral of students suspected of
having a disability rather than students with identified disabilities. This guidance may also be
problematic as it may not sufficiently promote the Child Find activities specified by law.

Furthermore, she notes this guidance may encourage charters to refer students with “early signs”
of academic, social or behavioral difficulties for special education assessment. This guidance
may result in the lack of implementation of pre-referral interventions and a response-to-
intervention approach, as well as promote inappropriate identifications.

Discipline and Expulsion

Gamm found that the guidance in two areas related to discipline and expulsion may lack clarity
to promote compliance with IDEA and state provisions. First, the special education program
description states that charters will:

“…comply with laws, including discipline. Discipline procedures will include positive
behavioral interventions. Prior to recommending expulsion for a student with disabilities, the
charter school will convene a manifestation determination IEP”.

Gamm notes that “the subject of expulsion is much more complicated than the above description
implies and it leaves an impression that more may not be required” (p.12). Mainly, the
description lacks the necessary guidance for schools when a student with a disability is referred
for expulsion and is found to have behavior that is not a manifestation of the disability.
Specifically, Gamm notes that the description should include guidance on the following IEP
team requirements:

 To identify the educational services that will enable the student to continue to participate
in the general education curriculum and to progress toward meeting his/her IEP goals
 Specify how these services will be provided and identify the location for the delivery of
such services.

Gamm also found the language on the Application Description under Element 10, Suspensions
and Expulsions to require an update to be aligned with the revised criteria for the manifestation
determination under IDEA and the revised LAUSD special education policies and procedures
manual (p. 253). Specifically, under this section, Special Education Discipline Language for
Charter Petitions, the following guidance is provided:

6/5/2009 7
 If it is determined [through a review committee] that the student’s misconduct was not a
manifestation of his or her disability, that the student was appropriately placed and was
receiving appropriate services at the time of the misconduct, and that the behavior
intervention strategies were in effect and consistent with the student’s IEP, the student may
be expelled (p 13).

She notes that under IDEA the criteria for the manifestation determination were revised during
the 2004 reauthorization to read as follows:

 Was the conduct caused by or did it have a direct & substantial relationship to the
disability?
 Was the conduct the direct result of a failure to implement the IEP?

Outcome 5 of the MCD requires the District to reduce suspensions for students with disabilities.
One of the approved targeted strategies within the Outcome 5 Target strategy plan is the
implementation of the District’s Discipline Foundation Policy approved by the Board of
Education. Since the implementation of this policy is an integral part of the efforts to comply
with the MCD, the District’s policy should be updated to reflect this requirement for its charter
schools. Furthermore, since charters are public schools of the LAUSD SELPA, the lack of the
implementation of this policy by all charters would constitute systemic non-compliance with this
requirement of the MCD. The document review did not find language that addressed the
implementation of the District-wide discipline policy as specified in the target strategy plan for
Outcome 5 of the MCD.

Governance

Gamm found discrepancies between the federally required grievance procedures and those
included within the charter petition documents. Specifically, she notes that the charter
application does not identify Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color and national
origin) and the ADA. The importance of these grievance procedures is to require the
“designation of at least one employee to coordinate compliance efforts, posting of grievance
procedures, including investigations of noncompliance and compliance with relevant admission
and employment” laws (p 16).

Access Compliance/Facilities

To restate, the MCD requires the Independent Monitor to determine that the District has no
systemic problems that prevent substantial compliance with the program accessibility
requirements of federal special education laws and regulations.

A review of the petition documents related to facilities requires charters to certify that their
buildings meet compliance with all applicable laws and LAUSD policies. Several forms contain
broad language that may infer compliance with applicable laws, however, the documents do not
contain specific language of the applicable laws (i.e., ADA, Section 504) related to access
compliance.

Gamm’s review found one general reference within the documents that indicate charters must
comply with the requirements of ADA. Gamm’s comments follow:

6/5/2009 8
 The Initial Application Checklist at Element 6 (Health and Safety) clearly states that the
charter application must contain an assurance that the schools’ facilities will comply with a
variety of requirements, including the ADA. However, neither the 2002 Charter School
Policy nor Initial Application Description provides any information about compliance with
the ADA. The Policy only specifies that a potential site will be inspected and evaluated by a
District engineer or facilities staff for structural issues, child safety issues, adjacent uses
(such as drug rehabilitation centers). The Initial Application Description only requires
information pertaining to insurance, indemnification, and asbestos management. The
document’s last section on facilities states that a “certificate of occupancy” is required at
least 45 days before school is scheduled to open in the facility. However, it is unclear
whether this certificate includes a review of ADA compliance (p. 15).

Program accessibility appears to be addressed by the certificate of occupancy issued by the city.
The District does not seem to assume any role in the oversight to ensure that charter schools
meet compliance with ADA and Section 504. Furthermore, new charters may be approved before
the facility is indentified and based on a temporary site. Finally, the range of buildings types may
exacerbate limitations with program accessibility, since charters may be housed in older non-
traditional buildings (i.e., storefronts, churches) that may be outdate or not designed to
accommodate people with disabilities.

In California, the Field Act sets seismic standards for new public school buildings to ensure the
safety of school aged children (K-14) attending public and private schools. However, the Charter
Schools Act of 1992 (47610) exempted charter schools from the provisions of the Field Act
unless it is otherwise specified in their charter. In the LAUSD, only charter schools with
facilities that are publicly funded are required to comply with the Field Act.

Compliance with the District’s Special Education Policies and Procedures

Another important indicator for determining systemic compliance is the acknowledgement that
charter schools are required to abide by the LAUSD’s Special Education Policies and Procedures
Manual. This is important considering that charters are afforded flexibility and autonomy from
District policies and procedures. In addition, since the majority of the LAUSD’s charter schools
are considered independent and generally exempt from District policies and procedures, the
inclusion of such language is essential.

The documentation associated with the new and renewal petitions clearly communicate that as
part of the LAUSD SELPA, all charters must adhere to the District’s special education policies
and procedures. Gamm points out that in accordance with this requirement, the District states its
responsibility to provide information and training regarding special education decisions, policies
and procedures to the same extent as DO schools.

Despite the clarity within the documentation that charters must adhere and comply with the
District’s special education policies and procedures, several challenges appear to ensure such
compliance. These challenges may be a result of the lack of specificity within the petition
application on the District’s authority and manner in which it will carry out this authority to
enforce these policies. Gamm notes that the application only requires petitioners to describe
these provisions as areas of responsibilities and does not require schools to identify the local

6/5/2009 9
procedures to implement such responsibilities. In essence, this description requires charters to
describe what they need to do, but not how they intend to carry it out. She comments that a more
thorough description of the local level procedures would “enable LAUSD to ensure that a
petitioner has thought through the intricacies of management and implementation of special
education services, and understands the expanse of activities involved and their related fiscal
impact” (p. 6).

A particular challenge expressed by both the Division of Special Education (DSE) and the
Charter Schools Division (CSD) is the nature of the governance structure which limits the line
authority to enforce such non-compliance. This challenge is observed within the responsibilities
of the District to provide the necessary information and training on its special education policies
and procedures. Although the DSE provides charters the information for obtaining the policies
and procedures manual, it does not directly provide or mandate that they obtain the manual.
Furthermore, when the DSE extends charters the opportunity to participate in District-sponsored
related trainings it has minimal authority to make charters comply.

This issue of line authority is complex as the DSE is the only instructional unit with such a clear
and direct relationship to charter schools. As Gamm noted above, this relationship may benefit
from additional language to clarify the roles and responsibilities of charters as members of the
LAUSD SELPA, particularly for independent charters.

Question #2:

Do the District’s policies and procedures promote equitable access and opportunity for students
with disabilities for a free and appropriate education at a District school of choice, such as
charter schools?

This section examines the potential impact of the District’s policies and procedures on the
enrollment of SWD at charters. To examine this issue the pilot reviewed the following:

 Enrollment data of SWD at charters and DO schools;

 Policies and procedures relevant to the recruitment, enrollment, selection, and retention
of SWD; and,
 The availability of special education programs at charters.

To frame this discussion, relevant elements of federal and state law, District policies and
procedures, and components of the MCD that promote the participation of SWD are discussed
below.

Two primary tenets of the legislative intent of charter law are to increase the learning
opportunities for academically low-achieving students and to expand school choice for students
and parents. The District’s policies governing charter schools support this intent and contain
elements aligned to federal and state law that encourage an increase of the educational
opportunities and programs for SWD.

In addition, the California Education Code promotes the participation and enrollment of SWD at
charters, and requires compliance with the following regulations:

6/5/2009 10
 Education Code Section 47605 (d) (2) (A) states: “A charter school shall admit all pupils
who wish to attend the school.”

Education Code Section 47646 (a) states, in pertinent part:

“A child with disabilities attending the charter school shall receive special education
instruction or designated instruction and services, or both, in the same manner as a child
with disabilities who attends another public school of the local education agency.”

The MCD contains performance outcomes designed to expand learning opportunities and school
choice for SWD and their families 3 . Also, in accordance with federal and state law, the LAUSD
policy requires that new charters and those seeking renewal affirm in their petitions that they will
not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender or disability.

Enrollment of Students with Disabilities at Charter Schools

Enrollment data is important when identifying whether a charter school’s policies promote
equitable access for SWD. If the population of SWD attending charters is proportionate to that
attending DO schools, it could be indicative of equitable access. Conversely, if differences exist,
it could be concluded that potential biases exist.

As mentioned earlier, the LAUSD has 148 charter schools with a student population of
approximately 58,000 students representing approximately 8% of the overall student population.
During this same time period, charter schools’ enrollment of SWD was approximately 4,400 or
7.6% of the District’s overall population of SWD. For DO schools, SWD consisted of 11.3% of
the overall population (Table 1).

The data was disaggregated to show differences in the enrollment of SWD at charters for
students with high and low incidence eligibilities. For the purposes of the MCD, students with
high incidence eligibilities include: specific learning disability, speech and language impairment
and other health impairments. Students with low incidence disabilities include all other
eligibilities 4 .

Table 1. Number and Percentage of Students with High and Low Incidence Disabilities Enrolled
by School Type
Total
School Type Total SWD High Incidence Low Incidence
Enrollment
N n % n % n %
Total 696,076 76,355 10.97 55,990 8.04 20,365 2.93
District Operated 638,076 71,936 11.27 52,215 8.18 19,721 3.09
All Charters 57,980 4,419 7.62 3,775 6.51 644 1.11

3
Outcome 2: Performance on the Statewide Assessment Program; Outcome 6 and 7: Least Restrictive Environment
- Increase time in the General Education Setting; Outcome 8: Home School.
4
Includes all other eligibilities such as: Autism, Mental Retardation, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment,
Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing, Orthopedic Impairment, Multiple Disabled and Emotional Disturbance.

6/5/2009 11
To identify potential differences in the enrollment of SWD, particularly students with low-
incidence disabilities, enrollment data were analyzed by charter type (i.e., independent start-up,
independent conversion and affiliated). Table 2 illustrates these differences by charter type.

Affiliated charters demonstrate the highest enrollment of students with low-incidence disabilities
(2.55%) compared to independent conversions and independent start-ups (1.34% and 0.73%,
respectively). These differences may be due to the previous status of affiliated and independent
conversion charters as DO schools. Overall, the data indicate that students with low incidence
disabilities may have less access to enroll and attend charter schools, with the least access for
attending independent charters.

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Students with High and Low Incidence Disabilities Enrolled
by Charter School Type
Total
School Type Total SWD High Incidence Low Incidence
Enrollment
N n % n % n %
All Charters 57,980 4,419 7.62 3,775 6.51 644 1.11
Independent
35,490 2,432 6.85 2,174 6.13 258 0.73
Start-ups
Independent
15,473 1,293 8.36 1,086 7.02 207 1.34
Conversions
Affiliated 7,071 694 9.89 515 7.34 179 2.55

When examining the data, a composite index (CI) was used to measure the representativeness of
one group to another. The 2008-2009 enrollment data indicate that the population of SWD
attending charter schools made up 7.6% of the overall charter student population, while SWD
consisted of 11.3% of the overall student population attending DO schools. To determine if
disproportionality exists, the OIM considered whether the enrollment of SWD at charter schools
differed by more than 20% of the DO population of SWD 5 . Thus, the population of SWD
attending charter schools would need to fall within the variance range of 9.04% to 13.56%.
Based on this criterion, the enrollment of SWD at charter schools is disproportionately low.

During the 2008-2009 school year, 644 students with low incidence disabilities attended charters
representing 1.11% of the total charter enrollment. In contrast, students with low incidence
disabilities made up 3.09% of the DO school population of SWD. Using the 20% criterion above,
the difference observed is well below the 20% variance range of 2.47% - 3.70%, and
demonstrates that students with low incidence disabilities are disproportionately under-enrolled
at charter schools.

5
According to the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational System’s (NCREST) practitioner brief,
Disproportionate Representation of Culturally Linguistically Divers Students in Special Education: Measuring the
Problem, this approach was adopted by the Office of Special Education, Us Department of Education, in its initial
implementation of IDEA 1997 mandate to monitor disproportionality.
http://www.ncrest.org/briefs/studnets_in_SPED_Brief.pdf The California Department of Education also uses a
composition index measure of 20% to determine overrepresentation.

6/5/2009 12
Also calculated were the risk index and relative risk ratio to further examine the
disproportionality of students with low incidence disabilities. The risk index measures the
proportion of a specific group of student to be served in a particular population. For example, the
risk of students with low incidence disabilities for being enrolled at charters is 1.11. This means
that approximately 1 out of 100 students with low incidence disabilities are likely to be enrolled
at a charter school. The risk for the enrollment at DO schools for students with low incidence
disabilities is 3.09, or approximately 3 out of 100 students.

The relative risk ratio which compares the risk of two different groups to determine
proportionality was also used to determine the degree or extent of this disproportionality. A
relative risk ratio of 1.0 indicates precise proportionality, a risk ratio over 1.0 indicates over-
representation, and a risk ratio of less than 1.0 indicates under-representation (Gibb & Skiba,
2008).

The relative risk ratio for students with low incidence disabilities to be enrolled in charter
schools is 0.36. Gibb and Skiba note that risk ratios indicating concerns for under-representation
are a risk ratio of 0.67 or less, while risk ratios of 0.50 or less indicate a level that indicates
significant under-representation. This means that students with low incidence disabilities
enrolled at LAUSD charters are significantly under-represented.

Data were analyzed by range of enrollment of SWD by school type to identify if differences exist
between charters and DO schools. Table 3 compares the number and percentage of schools by
range of enrollment of SWD by charter type and DO schools.

To examine differences between school type with higher enrollments of SWD, a criterion range
of 7% or above of SWD was utilized. Affiliated charters demonstrate the largest percentage of its
schools with enrollments of 7% or above, compared to independent conversions and independent
start-ups (75% affiliated vs. 60% and 40%, respectively).

When compared to DO schools, independent start-ups demonstrate the lowest number and
percent of schools with a range of enrollment of SWD of 7% or above (75%, DO vs. 41%).
When examined by the largest enrollment range of SWD, the data highlight the large disparity
between DO schools and independent start-ups (52.5% vs. 12%) in the number and percent of
schools with a SWD population of 10% or more.

6/5/2009 13
Table 3. Number and Percentage of Schools by Percent Range of SWD Enrolled,
2008-2009 School Year
School Type Total 0-3% 3-7% 7-10% 10% +
N’s n % n % n % n %
Total 996 123 12.3 167 16.8 240 24.0 466 46.8
District
847 104 12.3 104 12.3 194 22.9 445 52.5
Operated
All Charters 149 19 12.8 63 42.3 46 30.9 21 14.0
Independent
127 18 14.2 57 44.9 36 28.4 16 12.06
Start-ups
Independent
10 1 10.0 3 30.0 6 60.0 0 0.0
Conversions
Affiliated 12 0 0.0 3 25.0 4 33.3 5 41.7

The differences in the enrollment of SWD by charter type provide some useful insight on which
type of charters SWD attend. The District should consider closely monitoring the enrollment of
SWD over time at its affiliated and independent conversion charters to ensure that the policies
promote retention.

This disproportionality raises several questions and concerns related to the District’s compliance
with special education law and the MCD. Two primary questions emerge. First, do the processes
for the recruitment, enrollment, and retention of SWD promote equitable access and
opportunities for SWD? Second, is this disproportionality a result of systemic differences
between charters and DO schools in their capacity to serve SWD?

Policies and Procedures for the Recruitment, Enrollment and Retention of SWD at Charter
Schools

District policies and related documents regarding the recruitment, enrollment and retention of
SWD were reviewed to determine if areas exist within these policies that may be contributing to
the disproportionate enrollment of SWD at charters.

Some of the areas within these policies that may be contributing to the disproportionate
enrollment of SWD at charters may be related to the following processes:

 Preference for petitioners that provide a comprehensive learning experience for students
that are academically low-achieving;
 Identification of demographic target population charter will serve;
 Recruitment plan for SWD;
 Lottery/selection process for SWD; and,
 Enrollment procedures of SWD.

Gamm’s review found that these documents contained efforts to address issues related to
providing SWD access to charter schools and the provision of appropriate services. However,

6/5/2009 14
she notes that the District’s Charter School policies appear to “lack the full consideration and
clear expectations regarding a variety of areas related to students with disabilities. Particularly,
areas related to the enrollment of students with disabilities, including those with significant
disabilities as well as specific considerations for their performance (p1)”.

Preference for Petitioners that Provide a Comprehensive Learning Experience for Students
that are Academically Low-Achieving

The California Education Code states that preference should be given to schools that provide a
comprehensive learning experience for students that are considered academically low-achieving,
during the review process for the establishment of charters. Based on Gamm’s review of the
documents, it is unclear how this preference would be demonstrated for SWD, which
traditionally is an academically low-achieving group.

The lack of clarity or absence of such preferences may be contributing to the under-
representation of SWD. To ensure equitable access, such preferences should include the
provision of comprehensive learning experiences for students with moderate to severe
disabilities

Identification of Demographic Target Population the Charter Proposes to Serve

The new charter application requires a “reasonably comprehensive” description of the students
the school proposes to serve. Within this description, petitioners are required to identify the
specific demographic target group and subgroups.

The document review found that both the new charter application and the initial screening matrix
(checklist) sections require this description. However, neither include nor require any reference
to the subgroup of SWD. Although it is unclear how the omission of this particular subgroup
may affect enrollment, it may be reasonable to conclude that the lack of such specificity does not
promote the enrollment of SWD at charters.

The inclusion of SWD in the renewal checklist, even though it’s omitted from the new
application checklist, raises the question as to whether there are different expectations for new
and renewing charters schools.

The renewal checklist specifically includes SWD within the section that requires charters to
include allowable demographic ranges. Gamm’s review found language that lacked clarity and
raised questions related to the standard of comparison. Primarily, she notes that a comparison of
charter school enrollment of SWD to neighborhood schools may not provide a meaningful
measure. It is unclear how placement factors that do not apply to students in the general
education program are accounted for to avoid providing artificially “high” or “low” comparisons.
For example, some neighborhood schools may offer programs where students are transported in
from other sending schools, resulting in an “artificially high” population of SWD. In contrast,
some schools may place “their” students at other schools resulting in an “artificially low”
population.

6/5/2009 15
The issue of comparability requires further examination. Overall, the enrollment data reviewed
indicates a considerable non-comparable population of SWD attending at DO schools and those
attending charters.

Recruitment Plan for SWD

The outreach and recruitment of students is an integral component of petitioning charters.

Petitioners are required to include a description of its outreach and recruitment efforts. Such
efforts are intended to recruit all students, primarily those from the neighborhood (unless
otherwise stated). Additional are required to achieve racial and ethnic balance. The Application
Description reflects this requirement and requires petitioners to provide detailed information
about the Means to Achieve Racial & Ethnic Balance. This section requires a thorough
description of the annual outreach efforts, including:

 What methods the school will use to advertise and recruit students (flyers, newspaper
advertisements, informational fairs, etc.)
 How those outreach efforts will attain a racial and ethnic balance at the charter school
that is reflective of the District.

The document review found no evidence of such description to recruiting SWD. Neither the
application description, supplemental education program description, nor the Checklist addressed
the petitioner’s anticipated recruitment of SWD. The absence of such direction for the
recruitment of SWD may have a direct impact on the enrollment of these students.

Gamm explains that the recruitment of SWD is required by charters and notes that this direction
was issued by the Office of Civil Rights and includes a discussion of the issue as follows:

The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights addressed the issue of charter
school recruitment of students with disabilities in its May 2000 document, Applying Federal
Civil Rights Laws to Public Charter Schools: Questions and Answers 6 . In that document, the
Department explained that students with disabilities must be included in a charter’s recruitment
activities. The charter school enrollment process is different from that of most public schools in
that students are not simply assigned to attend a charter and (except in the case of conversion
charters) they must apply to be considered for admission. Thus, petitions should describe how
students with disabilities, especially those with significant disabilities, would be attracted and
encouraged to apply. This description should be comparable to the requirements described
above pertaining to the achievement of racial and ethnic balance (p. 9).

Lottery/Selection Process for SWD

The lottery and/or selection process is an integral component of the enrollment process for
ensuring equitable access for SWD to attend charters. This process is within the control,
oversight and authority of the District. Therefore, it should be able to establish and implement a
process that promotes the mission and vision of the Board of Education that increases school
choice for SWD.

6
http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/spedp/view/sped_aud/2?section=pre#60 (page 5)

6/5/2009 16
To determine if the District has such processes in place, a review of relevant documents was
conducted. The review found several areas of concern within the lottery/selection process that
should be addressed. First, there does not appear to be a uniform application for the enrollment
applications utilized by schools. This means that each charter school is responsible for creating
the enrollment application used. This practice may result in inconsistencies within the enrollment
process, and may increase the potential for items within the application that may be used for
screening SWD. The petition does appear to require schools to provide a copy of their respective
enrollment application, however, it is unclear how these enrollment applications are evaluated
and approved.

Considering that SWD are disproportionately under-enrolled at charter schools, particularly

those with significant disabilities, oversight of the application process is instrumental in ensuring
that these applications do not include information that would deter a charter school from
selecting these students.

Petitioners are required to describe their lottery processes. The documents reviewed appeared to
lack specificity of the role and oversight assumed by the District within this lottery selection. The
CSD confirms that minimal and inconsistent oversight exists over the selection process, which is
currently being addressed.

Gamm recommends that the LAUSD articulate the oversight responsibility for the lottery process
when a charter enrolls a disproportionately low proportion of SWD, including those with
moderate to severe disabilities. The rationale for this recommendation is included below:

Under California law, charters are required to admit all students wishing to attend the
school unless the number seeking attendance exceeds the school's capacity. In this case, with
a few exceptions attendance is determined by a public random drawing with preference given
to students currently attending the charter and those residing in the district. The code also
states that “other preferences may be permitted by the chartering authority on an individual
school basis and only if consistent with the law.” Education Code at §47605(d)(2)(A)and
(B).

In addition, the Application Description states that the charter school is subject to the
requirements of the Crawford court order, and the school must provide a written plan to
achieve and maintain the District’s ethnic balance goal of 70:30 or 30:70 ratios. As
discussed above, the MCD also contains ratios for LRE and home school placement.
Finally, the IDEA implementing regulation specifies that for a charter school that is a school
of an LEA the school district remains responsible for ensuring that IDEA requirements are
met.

Given the above discussion of California, IDEA and MCD requirements, it appears that
LAUSD has sufficient authority to ensure through a lottery supervision process or other
preferences that each charter school enrolls a meaningful proportion of students with
disabilities, including those with significant disabilities (p11-12).

The processes related to the selection of SWD are well within the control of the authorizing
District. The selection process is a critical and instrumental element in addressing the

6/5/2009 17
disproportionate under-representation of SWD, particularly those with moderate to severe
disabilities. Furthermore, this process is an integral safeguard in promoting the mission and
vision of the Board of Education, which aims to increase the learning opportunities of
academically low-achieving students and increase school choice options for students and their
parents.

Enrollment procedures of SWD

The California Education Code states that a charter shall admit all students who wish to attend
the school. Upon the enrollment of a SWD, additional considerations regarding the provision of
special education services specified within the child’s IEP must be addressed by the school’s IEP
team. This process and considerations are consistent across all public schools and are not limited
to charters. Although the law requires the enrollment of all students at charters, the process for
reviewing the special education services specified in the child’s IEP may influence the retention
of SWD at charters.

Consistent with the California Education Code, the DSE provided a letter to charter school
directors and principals with guidance for the enrollment of SWD 7 Gamm summarizes the letter
in the following key points:

 Charter schools may not refuse to enroll any student who has an IEP who would
otherwise be admitted to the school. Therefore, the student should be enrolled
immediately, even if it appears that the student might not be well served in the school’s
existing program.
 For any student with an IEP that cannot be implemented as written when the student
enrolls, convene an IEP team meeting within 30 days to discuss FAPE for the student and
make adjustments to the IEP.
 Include an LAUSD special education support unit representative at the IEP meeting if
there is a concern that the school may not be able to serve the student effectively.
 If there is a disagreement between school staff and parents, contact the Support Unit
Administrator (SUA) to determine next step (p.10).

Gamm found that the letter addresses some common special education enrollment issues, but
does not address or describe the processes in place when a disagreement between the District and
charter occurs regarding the school’s ability to serve a SWD. She adds that guidance related to
the enrollment process should include any authority LAUSD may have to require charter schools
to expand its provision of special education services. This is particularly important when the
District believes that doing so would enable a student to be appropriately educated in that school.
Gamm comments on the lack of this guidance and its implications below:

The absence of binding guidance regarding a charter school’s responsibilities with respect to
enrolling students with disabilities (including those with significant disabilities) that are
selected for admission and LAUSD’s authority when disagreements occur could impact
LAUSD compliance with IDEA, state and MCD requirements (p. 11).

7
Letter from Susan Melly, Dated December 20, 2005, Re: Guidance for Enrollment of Students with
Disabilities

6/5/2009 18
The DSE has expressed concerns related to the enrollment of SWD at charter schools. Primary
among them is the minimal oversight over the local processes for enrolling SWD at charters. One
particular concern expressed was the potential screening of the enrollment applications of SWD.
The DSE reported observing instances of charters requesting copies of IEPs prior to a child’s
enrollment. As a result, the DSE no longer provides a copy of the IEP until the school provides
evidence of the child’s enrollment. Despite this additional safeguard, the DSE notes parents are
required to disclose if their child has an IEP. Although this practice is consistent with the search
and serve procedures of IDEA, the DSE expressed concerns that an enrollment may be denied or
revoked if a parent failed to disclose such information.

The DSE also noted limitations of the letter that provides guidance on the enrollment of SWD.
The DSE indicates that the process in place may promote recommendations by IEP teams that
place students in DO schools. This may be due to the letter’s emphasis on the process, which
includes the role and authority of the District when determining a change of placement from the
charter. Consistent with Gamm’s observations, the DSE expressed concern that the letter may
promote IEP teams to base a change of placement determination on a disparity between the
services specified within the child’s IEP and those services readily available at the charter. To
promote the retention of SWD at charters, the letter should emphasize determining whether the
charter is an appropriate placement for the student and how it will provide the programs and
services at their respective schools.

Without this clarity of responsibilities, charters may hold IEP meetings to simply determine if
such services can or cannot be met. This process provides minimal incentive for charters to
increase the capacity of their special education services offered and encourage the enrollment
and retention of SWD. Without this additional guidance, these policies may promote non-
compliance with IDEA, which states “that students with disabilities attending charters are to
receive special education instruction or designated instruction and services, or both, in the same
manner as a child with disabilities who attends another public school of the local education
agency” (34 CFR Section 300.209(b)1)(i)).

Programming and Services

Data were analyzed to identify if differences exist between the special education programs
offered at charter and DO schools. For the purpose of this review, only the availability of the
resource specialist program and special day class program was examined.

During the 2008-2009 school year, 12 of 148 (8.1%) charter schools offered a special day
program as an option for serving SWD (Table 4). These programs are only available at
independent conversions and affiliated charter schools while all but one of the independent start-
ups did not offer any special day programs. In contrast, 87% of DO schools provided this same
program option. The data highlight a disparity that provides insights into the range of a school’s
special education program, as the majority of charters (84%) only provide resource specialist
services, compared to 8.3% of DO schools.

6/5/2009 19
Table 4. Program and Placement Type, by School Type
Total
School Type RSP Only SDC
Schools
N’s n % n %
DO 708 59 8.3 619 87.43
All Charters 148 123 84.3 12 8.1
Independent Start-ups 127 115 90.6 1 0.07
Independent Conversions 8 3 37.5 5 62.5
Affiliated 11 5 45.5 6 54.6

These data raise several questions regarding the requirements of the program description
included within the petition for new and renewal charters and the considerations taken by the
District’s approval process.

Collectively, the lack of such programs indicates a disproportionate availability of special

education services offered at charters. Since charters are considered a public school and part of
the LAUSD SELPA, the onus lies solely on the District to ensure that its schools provide a range
of programs and services as required by IDEA. This disproportionate availability of such
programs may indicate a lack of oversight and responsibility by the District to ensure the
equitable access to attend charter schools for SWD.

An additional factor that may contribute to the disproportionate availability of special education
services is that charters are solely responsible for establishing its special education programs and
services. The establishment of a special education program may require expertise and resources
beyond that of a petitioning charter. The DSE reports having minimal influence in determining
the programs or services provided at charters. Although the DSE provides support to charters and
an option for “fee-based” services, this support is relatively limited. To establish its programs
and provide services, some charters rely on the assistance and expertise of non-public agencies.
The establishment of such programs may be additionally affected by the willingness of the
District to approve charters and allow the development of such programs once in operation. This
model promotes the disproportionate availability of special education services from the onset,
and may present barriers for promoting equitable access to schools of choice for SWD.

Although the application process requires petitioners to describe the proposed special education
program and services it proposed to offer, the DSE indicates that most charters describe an
inclusive delivery model for SWD. Although this may be an effective model for SWD if
implemented properly, its implementation requires considerable efforts, knowledge of effective
instructional strategies for SWD and supports. Further, the data shows that charters, as a whole,
have not utilized the service delivery model to include SWD.

Provision of Transportation

The provision of school transportation as a related service was also explored. Transportation is a
related service that directly impacts access for students with physical, and moderate to severe

6/5/2009 20
disabilities. Essentially, the lack of transportation to and from school will deny many students the
necessary access to attend a school of choice, such as a charter school.

The charter application specifically outlines the responsibilities to provide transportation as a

related service for SWD only for conversion charters. This specificity and lack of clarity for
independent start-up charters may be in violation of IDEA regulations (§300.34(a)) which
specify that related services, including transportation, when necessary to assist a student to
benefit from special education. Furthermore, the CSD reports that the majority of charters do not
offer any type of transportation service.

Question #3

Does the District demonstrate the organizational capacity to ensure the implementation and
oversight of its charter schools associated with the mandated activities of the Modified
Consent Decree and special education law?

This question examines the organizational processes in place at charters to promote the
implementation of the MCD, the LAUSD special education policies and procedures, and
compliance with IDEA. Considering the different governance structure of charters, only
independent charters 8 were examined for the purposes of this section. Analysis is based on the
premise that for the purpose of the MCD, charter schools must adhere to the same standards as
DO schools. The pilot study focused on four areas of organizational capacity, which include:

 Accountability, Monitoring and Oversight of the MCD and Special Education

Compliance;
 Organizational Supports such as Professional Development;
 Data Systems; and,
 Communication.

To examine this capacity, informal interviews and a review of related documents were
conducted. These findings are considered preliminary and may be expanded through future
inquiries.

Accountability, Monitoring and Oversight of the MCD, and Special Education Compliance

Several mechanisms to promote the implementation, monitoring and oversight of the

requirements of the MCD exist. At the core of the MCD are the data based performance
measures and accountability system. In addition, District and State mandated mechanisms are in
place to monitor and oversee the special education programs at schools. The pilot study inquired
about the following:

1. MCD Progress Report and Snapshot Report

2. Targeted Strategy Plans (TSP)

3. MCD Accountability Plan

8
Affiliated charters maintain the governance structure of District Operated schools.

6/5/2009 21
 4. District Validation Review (DVR)

5. Schools Self-Review Checklist

6. Charter Schools Division oversight visits

MCD Progress Report and Snapshot Report

The DSE monitors the implementation and performance of the MCD outcomes of all its schools,
including charters. To provide this oversight, the DSE prepares periodic reports referred to as
MCD Progress Report and Snapshot Report. The former provides comprehensive performance
updates on the 18 Outcomes of the MCD, while the latter is designed to address the performance
of one or more specific outcomes. Both are used to provide schools with their current
performance compared to the required target of a specified outcome. For schools not achieving
the desired target(s), District contact, support and intervention is initiated.

A review of the implementation and accountability structure associated with this oversight
mechanism was conducted to determine if differences exist between charters and DO schools.

For DO schools, these reports are disseminated directly through the local district including the
local district superintendent, directors and principals. In instances where schools are not meeting
the performance targets of specific outcomes, the local district superintendent and director are
responsible for conferring with the school principal. In some cases, the local special education
support unit administrators and/or personnel from the DSE provide assistance and support. This
is consistent with the processes outlined within the Targeted Strategy Plan (TSP) and
Accountability Plan of the MCD.

The aforementioned process differs for charters since the MCD Progress Reports are provided to
schools directly by the DSE. These reports are not consistently provided to the CSD. There does
not seem to be a clear process of support or accountability for schools not meeting the target
levels. Schools are provided with these reports, but appear to receive minimal follow-up by the
District.

Targeted Strategy Plans

The MCD’s Targeted Strategy Plan (TSP) guides the short and long-term action planning for
meeting specific outcomes of the MCD. TSPs are developed collaboratively by multi-
disciplinary departments of the District and are led by the DSE. The TSPs contain a framework
to guide the implementation of specific strategies and accountability at the central, local district,
and school level.

For DO schools, the dissemination and oversight of the implementation of TSPs maintain a
similar process as noted with the MCD Progress Report and Snapshot Report. The process
associated with the TSP includes additional support and involvement from specific departments
within the DSE. For example, the behavior unit of the DSE may provide direct support for the
implementation of the TSP for Outcome 5: Suspension. This is consistent with the processes
outlined in the TSPs and Accountability Plan of the MCD.

6/5/2009 22
Conversely, TSPs are only made available to charter schools via the DSE website. At the time of
this report, the DSE reported no oversight of the implementation of the TSP, but acknowledged it
will begin to monitor this process.

MCD Accountability Plan

The MCD accountability plan provides a framework that outlines the line authority in place to
ensure the implementation of activities associated with the MCD and for holding schools
accountable. For DO schools, this line authority includes the local district superintendents,
directors, principals and assistant principals. The accountability plan also requires that
performance of MCD outcomes be embedded within the performance evaluations of
administrators responsible for the implementation of the MCD.

For charter schools, the accountability structure in place is not aligned with that outlined for DO
schools. Therefore, differences are noted within the accountability structure. One common
challenge reported by both the DSE and CSD is the differences within the line authority for
holding charters accountable. Both acknowledge that independent charter school employees are
not LAUSD employees, and therefore the District is limited in its ability to hold employees
accountable.

This is particularly more difficult to navigate for the DSE. The DSE is in a unique position from
other District departments as the only unit with direct policy implications and interaction with
charter schools that influence day-to-day operations.

The accountability structure of charters is facilitated by the CSD. The CSD reports several
processes and procedures in place to address various performance measures for charters. These
processes may include: notification to schools of the issue or concern; conferencing with charter
directors; corrective action plans; annual school evaluations; and, recommendations for the
renewal or revocation of the schools charter. Although these processes are similar to those of DO
schools, the CSD primarily functions in a facilitative role, providing oversight and supporting
accountability, with minimal authority to hold charters and its employees accountable.

District Validation Review

The DVR is a state required internal compliance review conducted triennially at all public
schools. In the LAUSD, the reviews are conducted by the Division of Special Education
Compliance Unit. The DVR consists of a review of various indicators of compliance with IDEA
and state regulations. When non-compliant areas are identified, schools are provided a corrective
action and are required to follow-up with the compliance unit upon completion of the corrective
actions.

In the LAUSD, charter schools are included in the DVR process and subject to the same
processes and procedures as DO schools. The DVR report is provided to the Charter School
administrator, the Executive Director of the CSD, and the DSE Coordinator for Charters and
Private Schools. When non-compliant areas are identified, as with DO schools, charter schools
are provided a corrective action and are required to follow-up with the compliance unit upon
completion of the corrective action.

6/5/2009 23
 Schools Self-Review Checklist

The Schools Self-Review Checklist is an annual measure of compliance with applicable special
education laws as required by the LAUSD. This checklist is completed at the beginning of the
school year and returned to the DSE. The DSE provides support and guidance to DO schools
when areas of non-compliance are found and require remediation.

Charter schools also are required to complete this checklist. Unlike DO schools, however,
charters return the checklist to the CSD and do not provide a copy to the DSE. The responsibility
to follow-up then lies on the CSD. It is also unclear how the findings from the checklist are
considered in the charter school’s evaluation or for renewal.

Supports and Professional Development

Professional development or trainings specific to the implementation of relevant MCD activities

and special education policy are offered by the District to charters. While offered, these trainings
are not required for charter schools. The trainings are typically provided by the local district
support units or the DSE. Some examples of training topics offered include: Welligent IEP;
Special Education Policies and Procedure Manual; Transition Services; Student Discipline and
Behavior Supports; and, How to Write an IEP.

While the training sessions are not mandatory, specific activities of the MCD are, including the
utilization of the Welligent IEP system and the implementation of the District’s policies and
procedures. This incongruity raises questions of the processes in place to effectively implement
requirements of the MCD at charters.

The DSE expressed concerns that many charters do not respond or attend these trainings. To
illustrate this, the DSE noted that during the 2007-2008 school year, the District held four
trainings specifically for charters on the Welligent IEP system. These sessions were held at
different locations to facilitate attendance, and yielded the participation of approximately six
schools for each session.

New charters are expected and mandated to attend a one-time orientation for potential charter
representatives prior to submitting a charter petition. The orientation presents a general overview
of their responsibilities and does not include specific information on things such as: compliance
requirements, accountability, and/or the development of special education programs.

Overall, the District seems to provide opportunities for charters to participate in the trainings to
develop the necessary capacity to implement the requirements of the MCD and District’s special
education policy. These trainings appear to be minimally attended, possibly because the trainings
are optional. This finding questions the District’s effectiveness in implementing the MCD and its
special education policies and procedures at charter schools. Finally, the DSE and CSD both
report that the local district support units provide frontline support to charters.

6/5/2009 24
Data Systems

The implementation and success of the MCD relies heavily on utilization, maintenance and
accuracy of its data systems. The performance measures of the MCD are quantitative by design,
relying on timely and accurate data. Three primary data systems are utilized by DO schools and
include: Welligent IEP system; Student Information System (SIS); and, Integrated Student
Information System (ISIS).

Consistent with the mandates of the MCD, charter schools are required to utilize both the
Welligent IEP system and ISIS. Charters are not required to maintain the SIS, which contains
integral data indicators for monitoring the MCD, such as student suspension and graduation data.
While all affiliated schools and some independent charters have elected to utilize the SIS system,
many independents have chosen to maintain other systems. This practice has raised several
concerns with the District and OIM.

Two primary concerns are related to the timeliness and accuracy of the data reported. First, for
charters not on the SIS, the District is unable to upload data directly from these schools. This
places the ability to obtain timely data on the responsiveness and cooperation of individual
charter schools. While some provide data in a timely manner, this has been a source of
frustration for the District and OIM. A particular challenge expressed by the District in obtaining
timely data is the lack of line authority to hold charter schools accountable. This concern was
recently addressed by the IM, DSE and CSD. An agreement was reached that holds the Director
of the Charter School Division accountable for the timely provision of special education data at
charters.

Second, the maintenance of separate student information systems raises concerns over the
accuracy of the data. Since the inception of the MCD, the District and OIM have engaged in
considerable efforts to validate and improve the accuracy of its data systems. As a result of these
efforts, edits and policy bulletins to promote the accurate entry and maintenance of data have
been implemented. For charters that do not utilize the SIS, the District is responsible for
reconciling these data fields and integrating this into the SIS system. This process of integrating
and reconciling data from separate systems presents the potential for inaccurate data.

The utilization of the Welligent IEP system is required at all charter schools. While it appears
that all charters are using the Welligent system to conduct and maintain IEP information, only a
few are fully using the Welligent service tracking feature. The limited use of this feature has
considerable implications on the performance of Outcome 13: Delivery of Services, of the MCD,
as well as the District’s ability to effectively monitor the special education programs and services
at charters. The DSE acknowledges the impact of schools not fully implementing the Welligent
IEP system, and cite limitations with the line authority for holding charters accountable.

Another concern expressed by the DSE is the utilization of the Welligent System by Non-Public
Agencies that may not have proper log-on access or training. This may have implications on the
roles and effectiveness of the IEP team at charters, as school administrators may designate NPAs
to represent them as administrators with the authority to expend District services and resources.

6/5/2009 25
Communication

Two factors that may affect lines of communication between the District and charter schools is
the autonomous nature of charters and it use of separate data systems. For this reason, the pilot
made inquiries regarding the impact of communication between charters and the District as it
relates to the implementation of the MCD and the LAUSD special education policies.

For DO schools, the LAUSD maintains several modes of communication for distributing
information, such as: policy updates, informational bulletins, memorandums, and periodic
reports. The LAUSD website contains features to facilitate this dissemination. For example, the
District’s website contains a feature known as Inside LAUSD, which contains all of the
memorandums, bulletins and policies it sends out. School administrators are able to log-on and
reference these bulletins when necessary. Within the Inside LAUSD there is feature referred to as
Learning Zone, which helps coordinate attendance at District trainings.

For charters, these forms of communication are not readily available. The primary mode of
communication between these schools and the District is email. Special education policy
updates, bulletins, and memorandums are emailed directly to schools by the DSE. Charters do
not have access to Inside LAUSD because the schools lacked the assigned access since its
employees are not District employees. However, special education reference guides, bulletins,
and memorandums are available to the public on the Division of Special Education website in
the eLibrary. The District reports that independent charters will be assigned this sign-on access
by the end of August 2009.

Last, the DSE reports that the communication between charters and the Division has been further
hampered as special education items have not been a regular agendum at the periodic charter
directors meetings held by the CSD. In the past, the DSE felt these meetings were a valuable
opportunity to disseminate information and support charter schools.

Question #4:

Do charter schools present potential barriers or concerns related to the substantial systemic
compliance of the District’s special education programs and with the program accessibility
requirements under federal and state law?

The MCD consists of performance outcomes that aim to improve the District’s systemic
compliance with IDEA. In addition, the MCD requires the District’s school facilities to comply
with the program accessibility requirements of the ADA and Section 504.

This section examines the impact of charter schools’ on the District’s substantial systemic
compliance with the MCD, special education law and federal program accessibility
requirements. To gauge this impact, the following compliance indicators were reviewed:

 Integration of Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities in the General Education

Setting
 Timely Completion of Initial Evaluations and Annual IEP Meetings
 Delivery of Special Education Services
 Program Accessibility at Select Schools

6/5/2009 26
Integration of Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities in the General Education
Setting

The MCD contains a two-part performance outcome aimed at increasing the number of students
with moderate to severe disabilities in the general education setting. The first, Outcome 7A,
focuses on students with all other eligibilities, such as: mental retardation, deaf and hard-of-
hearing, emotional disturbance, and traumatic brain injury. Outcome 7B, addresses the
integration of students with multiple disabilities-orthopedic (MDO). To achieve this goal, the
District must increase and demonstrate internal capacity at its schools to effectively integrate
these students.

Table 5 demonstrates that charter schools integrate students with all other eligibilities at a higher
percentage (83.4%) than the target of Outcome 7A and DO schools (51% and 54%,
respectively). While the data may indicate high levels of integration of these students, the
differences in the population of SWD may limit comparisons and inferences of best practice.
However, the District may consider inquiring into the instructional models at charters to identify
potential effective practices that could be implemented at charters and DO schools.

Table 5. Time Category in the General Education Setting for Students with All Other
Disabilities, by School Type
More than 40% in General Less than 40% in General
School Type Total SWD
Education Setting Education Setting
N’s N % n %
District
12,072 6,528 54.08 5,544 45.92
Operated
All Charters 457 381 83.37 76 16.63
Independent
168 163 97.02 5 2.98
Start-ups
Independent
137 91 66.42 46 33.58
Conversions
Affiliated 152 127 83.55 25 16.45
Total 12,529 6,909 55.14 5,620 44.86
Target 51.0

Charters have minimal impact on the District’s performance for integrating students with MDO
due to the low number of students enrolled (Table 6). Considering the District is well below the
required target of Outcome 7B, it can be reasonably concluded that charter schools have a
negative impact on the District’s compliance with this outcome.

Interestingly, the majority of the students with MDO enrolled are integrated in the general
education setting for 40% or more of the day. Although, these students are located in 3 schools,
the District should similarly consider reviewing these programs to identify potential best
practices that may be implemented at both charters and DO schools.

6/5/2009 27
Table 6. Time Category in the General Education Setting for Students with MDO, by School
Type
Total More than 40% in General Less than 40% in General
School Type
SWD Education Setting Education Setting
N’s n % n %
District
1,045 101 9.67 944 90.33
Operated
All Charters 12 7 58.33 5 41.67
Independent
5 5 100.0 0 0.0
Start-ups
Independent
1 1 100.0 0 0.0
Conversions
Affiliated 6 1 16.67 5 83.33
Total 1,057 108 10.22 949 89.78
Target 23.0

Timely Completion of Initial Evaluations and Annual IEP Meetings

The timely completion of an initial evaluation is a cornerstone of compliance with IDEA. The
target for completing initial evaluations within 60 days (90%) is aligned with performance levels
indicative of substantial systemic compliance. Table 7 shows that charter schools are not meeting
the target of the 60-day timeline and may imply a negative impact on the substantial systemic
compliance of the District. Conversely, DO schools are meeting or exceeding all of the targets of
Outcome 10.

Table 7. Timely Completion of Initial Evaluations, by Time Category

School Total # Within Within Within
Over 90 Days
Year IEPs 60 Days 75 Days 90 Days
N n % N % n % n %
2007-08 547 446 81.54 491 89.76 515 94.15 32 5.85
2008-09* 325 267 82.15 298 91.69 309 95.08 16 4.92
Target 90.0 Target 95.0 Target 98.0%
* Data through March 15, 2009

The IDEA requires that annual IEP meetings be held in a timely manner for SWD. Charters
demonstrate higher rates (29.5%) of overdue annual IEP meetings than DO schools (19.5%).
While both indicate a potential compliance issue, charters have a higher percentage of IEP
meetings overdue by more than four months (43.6% vs. 34.8%, DO schools). This issue should
be addressed by both charters and DO schools. For charters, this issue should provide an
opportunity to observe the effectiveness of the accountability plan of the MCD and oversight
mechanisms of the CSD (Table 8).

6/5/2009 28
Table 8. Overdue Annual IEPs Over Time, by School Type
Total # Over 12
Overdue Total Overdue 2 Months 4-12 Months
IEPs Months
N n % n % n % N %
DO 56,527 11,045 19.5 7,201 65.2 3,444 31.18 400 3.6
Charters 2,067 609 29.5 343 56.3 222 36.45 44 7.2

Delivery of Special Education Services

A fundamental tenet of the IDEA is the delivery of services specified in a student’s IEP. These
services constitute a student’s free and appropriate education as offered by the District and
agreed to by the IEP team. The IM has reminded the District that the failure to provide the
services specified in IEPs constitutes substantial noncompliance with Federal and State law 9 . In
addition, the IM directed the District to ensure that all service providers entered their logs in the
Welligent system.

Outcome 13 requires that 93% of SWD show evidence of service delivery. The Welligent
tracking log is the only measure utilized for determining the District’s compliance with this
outcome. To examine charters schools impact on Outcome 13, data from the Welligent service
tracking log feature provided by the DSE 10 and analyzed by the OIM. For the purpose of this
review, frequency and duration data were not included within the analysis.

Overall, charters present a significant problem in the District’s ability to ensure the delivery of
special education services. Approximately 50% of all charters are not using the Welligent
tracking log feature, while 24.6% showed evidence of partial logs (Table 9). This low rate of
utilization indicates the ineffectiveness of the District to carry out the mandates of the MCD at
charters schools. Conversely, DO schools are either meeting or close to meeting the 93% target
of service delivery.

Table 9, Charter School Level of Utilization of the Welligent Tracking Logs, by Service
Use of
RSP LAS PUC DHH Other Total
Welligent
N % N % n % N % N % N %
Yes 37 27.2 24 21.4 18 19.4 18 48.6 37 26.0 134 25.8
Partial 54 39.7 26 23.2 20 21.5 11 29.7 17 8.2 128 24.6
No 45 33.1 62 55.4 55 59.1 8 21.6 86 65.8 256 49.3
Total 136 100 112 100 93 100 37 100 141 100 519 100

9
Re: Report on the Progress and Effectiveness of the Los Angeles Unified School District’s Implementation of the
Modified Consent Decree during the 2007-2008 School Year – Part I, Dated October 1, 2008, p. 14
10
Services were compared between those listed on CASEMIS and Welligent tracking logs.

6/5/2009 29
Program Accessibility

To examine the impact of charter schools on the District’s substantial systemic compliance with
the program accessibility requirements, the OIM and Disability Access Consultants conducted a
walk-through of four schools. The walk-through was not intended to be a comprehensive
inspection to measure compliance with ADA and Section 504, but rather to obtain a general
observation of program accessibility at charter schools.

Schools were selected based on the different types of sites. For instance, two new schools were
visited, one built through the processes of the LAUSD and DSA; the other built through the City
of Los Angeles and managed by the charter. The third school is a leased community annex at a
church. The fourth is a charter-owned site of a converted business.

The walk-through found three of four schools with overall program accessibility, while
demonstrating a number of non-compliant ADA items.

Charter School #1: Newly Built LAUSD School

This new school was constructed under the management of the LAUSD and oversight of DSA.
The school was overall compliant and offered program accessibility with two major exceptions:
non-compliant parking and drinking fountains.

Charter School #2 – Non-LAUSD Newly Constructed School

This school was built independent of the District’s facilities division and DSA. The school was
designed, built and opened within three years of the land being purchased. The review found
some non-compliant findings, particularly in the school’s auditorium, which did not have an
accessible entrance or seating. Overall, general program accessibility was noted to be compliant.

Charter School #3 Leased Facility – Church

This school is located within the community buildings of a church. The school overall was
overall non-compliant, with no compliant parking, accessible entrance, accessible bathrooms or
accessible common areas. The site did not offer program accessibility.

Charter School #4 – Older Converted Building

Some non-accessible features were noted at this converted business. The walk-through observed
a non-accessible entrance at the front of the school. The school indicated the rear entrance was
the primary entry for all students and public. This entrance offered general program accessibility,
yet found some non-compliant findings which could be remedied. It was noted that the school
had gone through several renovations which included work to enhance program accessibility.

References

Gibb, A.C. & Skiba, R. (2008). Using data to address equity in special education. Education
Policy Brief. 4(3), Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation & Policy.

6/5/2009 30
Rhim, L. M., Ahearn, E. M. & Lange, C. M. (2007). Charter School Statutes and Special
Education: Policy Ambiguity?. The Journal of Special Education. 41, (1) 50-63.

6/5/2009 31
 Appendix A

Analysis of Documents Pertaining to the (Re)Approval of LAUSD Charter Schools

& Compliance with State/Federal Special Education Law
By Sue Gamm, Esq.
Educational Strategies & Support
May 2, 2009

Pursuant to a request from the Office of the Independent Monitor, Modified Consent Decree
(MCD), this document reflects an analysis of the policies and procedures used by the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) with respect to charter schools and their access by
students with disabilities. This analysis focuses on the District’s guidance for potential charter
operators, requirements relating to the submission and review of initial and renewal charter
petitions, and related policies and documents to determine whether they sufficiently promote
equal educational opportunities for students with disabilities and comply with applicable state
and federal special education law.
Generally, as evident in its supplemental guidance pertaining to special education, LAUSD is
making efforts to address issues involved in providing students with disabilities access to charter
schools and providing them with appropriate services. This area is one that many school districts
find challenging as they try to balance the innovative nature of the charter school movement with
the rights and particular needs of this group of students.
However, when viewing the District’s Charter School Policy and documents related to the initial
and renewal of charter applications, it does not appear that LAUSD has fully considered and
communicated expectations regarding a variety of areas related to students with disabilities.
Most notably, these include their enrollment, including those with significant disabilities; and
specific consideration of their performance.
According to the District’s mission, LAUSD will encourage and nurture the development and
confirmation of charter schools that are accountable for improved student learning and that can:
 Provide possible solutions to urban school challenges through practices that help:
 Ease the shortage of school facilities and seat space
 Narrow the achievement gap among students of various backgrounds
 Increase responsible parent and student involvement in learning
 Improve teacher quality and performance evaluation systems.
 Provide data to help identify and evaluate issues that affect quality educational programs
and student learning and achievement.
 Serve as laboratories to test, demonstrate and disseminate ideas that can promote better
educational practices.
 Provide an additional educational option for parents
Also, the Policy requires charters to increase learning opportunities for all students, with special
emphasis on expanded learning experiences for those who are identified as academically low
achieving.
While the inclusion of students with disabilities is clearly aligned with the District’s mission and
emphasis on increased learning opportunities for those who are academically low achieving,
without expressed and specific language that articulates its expectations, requirements and
accountability it is foreseeable that the enrollment of these students will be proportionately small.
In addition, it is foreseeable that charter enrollment will exclude most students with significant
disabilities unless the District clearly articulates an expectation that they do so. This may be
accomplished through inclusionary practices where these students are educated within the
regular education classroom and/or through cooperative agreements whereby charters specialize
in instruction for students with particular learning and instructional needs. Whatever the means,
any results that exclude a meaningful proportion of all students, including those with significant
disabilities, will be counter to LAUSD’s mission and stated intent. In addition, accountability
measures must ensure that the performance of this subgroup counts and is not masked by overall
higher performances of other students.
The following documents were considered in this review; additional documents that were
utilized are referenced accordingly.
 Los Angeles Unified School District Charter School Application Description (Application
Description)
 Demographic Information for Prospective Site
 Charter Schools Guideline Checklist – Initial Screening
 Charter School Renewal Components
 LAUSD Charter Schools Division Renewal Criteria and Findings
 Required and Recommended Petition Language, including Special Education Program
 Guidance for Enrollment of Students with Disabilities
 LAUSD Power Point presented by Donnalyn Jacque-Anton, Associate Superintendent and
Didi Nubla, Deputy Budget Director on November 20, 2008
 Relevant California Education Code and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
provisions relevant to this issue
 Policy for Charter Schools, approved by the LAUSD Board of Education, June 25, 2002
 March 24, 2009 board reports for denial of renewal petitions for Charter of Los Angeles
International Charter High School and Opportunities Unlimited Charter High School and to
approve Equitas Academy Charter School
 Working Draft: Renewal Criteria and Findings & Refined Scoring System
Prior to addressing specific comments about the documents reviewed, the following are two
general overall observations.
 The term special education students was used throughout the Application Description. The
use of people first language is preferred, such as students receiving special education,
students with disabilities, students with special needs, etc.
 A second prevalent term used was special education programs. To some, this term connotes
a defined set of services that may be viewed as relevant for specific disability areas or
categories, e.g., autism. A preferred view is to describe special education services,
including specialized instruction, related services, supplemental aids and services,
accommodations, modifications, interventions, etc., that are individualized and based on the
needs of students with disabilities. Under this paradigm, schools do not have specific
programs that a student may fit into; rather they have an array of services that exist or may
be introduced to meet the needs of students.
The following describes positive features of the LAUSD charter school application and renewal
process as they pertain to students receiving special education services; issues the documents

2
raise in light of relevant legal requirements; and the extent to which the preference for petitions
that demonstrate the capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students
identified as academically low achieving pertains to students with disabilities.

Initial Application
1. The Checklist is not aligned with all of the elements referenced in the Application
Description and the Checklist does not appear to provide a transparent method for
documenting results.
In the area of Operational Contents, the Initial Application Checklist (Checklist) addresses a
number of areas that are addressed in the Application Description. However, the Application
Description contains core areas that the petition is required to address that are absent from
the Checklist, including the following:
 Instructional program and curriculum, including how it addresses the needs of the
targeted student population, the evidence (research-based) of success, teacher
recruitment, professional development, etc.; and
 How the instructional program will meet the needs of students who are English language
learners (ELL), socioeconomically disadvantaged, gifted, achieving below grade level,
and receiving special education.
 The proposed special education program that is described on five pages in a March 27,
2008, supplement to the Application Description that was prepared by the Charter
Schools Division.
Given the lack of alignment between these two documents, it is not clear how all of the
critical elements contained in the Application Description would be objectively and
consistently assessed by reviewers and documented in the Checklist. This lack of alignment
is particularly noteworthy in the area of assessing a petition’s capacity for providing special
education services since this area is neither referenced nor scored in the Checklist.
In addition, the following two issues are relevant:
 The Education Code at §47605(b)(5)(h) states that in reviewing petitions for the
establishment of charter schools, preference must be given to those demonstrating the
capability to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students identified by the
petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving. It is not clear from the Checklist
how this preference would be demonstrated for students with disabilities, which
traditionally is an academically low achieving subgroup.
 None of the documents clarify how each item in the Checklist is scored and whether any
weight is given to the various items based on their relative importance. For example,
some of the items include numerous subsections. It is unclear, however, if each
subsection is scored separately and given an overall score or if only one score is noted for
each area. As discussed above, the area of special education services has pages of
descriptive guidance but it is absent from Element 1, Operational Contents. It would
seem that scoring to reflect this important area would be given more of a weight than
Item 14, for example, which is to reflect procedures to resolve disputes relating to
provisions of the charter that match LAUSD “Boiler Plate” Language.

3
 In sum, there does not appear to be a transparent and meaningful connection between the
Application Description, and Checklist scoring and results, including an objective and
measured consideration of special education support. Further, it appears that a charter school
application could have serious deficiencies in the area of special education but score high
enough in other areas to support its approval. The scoring process should be reviewed and
revised as necessary to ensure that this outcome will not occur.

2. The required demographic data reflecting the target population of students the school
proposes to serve does not include the subgroup of students with disabilities.
Referencing Element 1 (The Educational Program) requirements, the Application Description
states that the petition must identify and describe as clearly as possible the students the
school proposes to serve. The description must include demographic data for the target
population and the petitioner must document this information on an attached matrix. The
matrix also requires the input of data from surrounding LAUSD and charter schools in the
following areas: number of students, multi-track school, program improvement, met
schoolwide growth target, met subgroup growth targets, API score, API state ranking, similar
schools rank, students eligible for free/reduced lunch, and major ethnicity. Finally, the
Application Description requires the petition to describe other applicable characteristics of
the target population (e.g., potential dropouts, newcomer populations, etc.)
Notably, neither the matrix nor examples of other applicable characteristics of the target
population require any reference to data pertaining to students with disabilities. Further, the
matrix does not seem to provide a category for those students that the charter school
proposes to serve. To fulfill the stated intent of this section, LAUSD should require petitions
to document the targeted number of students with disabilities it proposes to serve and specify
its intent to include students with significant disabilities.
3. LAUSD’s guidance for petitioners to describe their provision of special education services
contains many useful elements.
In my experience, many school districts are struggling with the challenge of enabling charter
schools to operate independently and creatively to provide an educational program of high
quality for children and youth, and ensuring that students with disabilities are included
equitably and supported meaningfully. It is evident that LAUSD is striving to meet this
challenge by describing for petitioners the type of information pertinent to special education
services that it expects to see in successful petitions and important elements of accountability
and fiscal responsibility. The Charters Schools Division document addresses a variety of key
areas, including the following:
 Legal Requirements. Adherence to federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to
students with disabilities, LAUSD policies and procedures, Chanda Smith Consent
Decree and court orders; and submission of documents and information, participation in
reviews, and attendance at informational sessions and meetings;
 Documentation. Use of LAUSD forms, accurate data entry into LAUSD’s designated
data system, maintenance of copies for review, submission of required reports,
participation in state quality assurance process, internal validation reviews, etc.;
 Service Provision. Implementation of programs and services, including providing related
services, required by the IEPs of students enrolled at the charter school; and permitting

4
  Transferring Students. Procedures for service provision and financial support in some
cases for students transferring from District schools or affiliated charters;
 Programmatic Issues. Support for educating students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment and with their nondisabled peers; professional development and
participation in available appropriate LAUSD training; and assurances that teachers and
others are knowledgeable about student IEP content;
 Transportation. For conversion schools, description of responsibility for transportation
services based on various circumstances;
 Complaints. Recognition that LAUSD investigates and responds to all special education
complaints it receives pertaining to charter schools; charter school cooperation and
provision of pertinent data; and responsibility for any applicable costs associated with the
investigation and implementation of any corrective action required;
 Policies & Procedures. A clear statement that charter schools authorized by LAUSD are
public schools within the district for purposes of providing special education services and
a recognition that the District determines the policies and procedures necessary to ensure
that the protections of special education law extends to all LAUSD students, including
those enrolled in charter schools. Also, a recognition that the District will provide
information and training to charter schools regarding special education decisions, policies
and procedures to the same extent as they are provided to other LAUSD schools.
 Funding. A recognition that LAUSD will collect a fair share contribution from
independent charter schools for districtwide costs for special education instruction and
services, which include but not limited to: 1) maintaining a full continuum of program
options; 2) professional development and training; 3) consultation and technical support
for programs; 4) administration of due process proceedings, excluding any legal
representation; 5) investigation of complaints; 5) assistance/participation at IEP team
meetings and other opportunities from special education support units; and 6)
implementation of the MCD.
 Due Process. A thorough and well thought-out provision regarding charter/district
responsibility in the area of due process, including charter responsibility for attorney fees
and costs when parents are the prevailing party as a result of a due process hearing or
settlement agreement based on the charter school’s alleged failure to fulfill its
responsibilities under state/federal special education requirements. (Other fiscal issues
related to this policy are discussed below.)
4. Areas in which LAUSD’s guidance may be strengthened or clarified.
As discussed below, there are a number of important areas in which the Charters Schools
Division document pertaining to special education services may be strengthened or clarified.
a. Clarify that the description of special education services is required boilerplate.
The document’s caption for its section on special education states Special Education
Required Language yet it is not accompanied by an asterisk, which according to the

5
 document designates required language. Given the importance of this area and
LAUSD’s requirements under Chanda Smith, it is important to clearly articulate pertinent
standards for charter school petitions.
b. Clearly articulate LAUSD’s authority and manner in which it will carry out its
authority to enforce provisions related to special education services.
Although the Application Description discusses various aspects relating to charter school
compliance with special education requirements, it does not clearly articulate the manner
in which LAUSD will enforce these requirements during the charter’s term. For
example, as referenced above, the section on special education explains that the charter
schools are bound by LAUSD policies and procedures. However, the document does not
describe the steps the District will take to enforce this provision during the term of the
charter. Even if LAUSD may later decide not to renew a charter due to its
noncompliance in this area the guidance should clarify the steps the District will take to
bring the charter into compliance when issues are first identified.
c. Require petitioners to describe how they will carry out key requirements.
Even if the provisions contained in the Application Description pertaining to special
education are required, the provisions merely describe areas of responsibility. None of
the provisions require a petitioner to describe the local procedures it would use to
implement these areas of responsibility. Such a description would enable LAUSD to
ensure that a petitioner has thought through the intricacies of management and
implementation of special education services, and understands the expanse of activities
involved and their related fiscal impact.
For example, the Special Education Technical Assistance for Charter Schools Project
(SPEDTACS) developed primers and a web program to provide critical knowledge and
resources for charter schools. 1 The primer developed for charter operators suggests that
they address areas that include the following, in their proposals:
 Describe how you are aware of the responsibilities entailed in the general assurance;
 Articulate your plan regarding governance, service delivery and finance of special
education;
 Explain how you will plan to:
 Identify, evaluate and serve children and youth with disabilities;
 Develop, review, and revise IEPs;
 Integrate special education into the general education program;
 Deliver special education and related services;
 Implement transition plans and work with relevant post-school agencies; and
 Project the cost of special education in the school.
Through this type of descriptions, LAUDS would have a better understanding of the
extent to which a petitioner understands its responsibilities pertaining to students with
disabilities and has a plan and means for carrying them out. (See Appendix A for
additional information that is contained in the Primer.)

1
Funding for the primers was received by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) by the U.S.
Dept. of Education. http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/spedp/print/uscs_docs/spedp/operators.htm

6
 In addition, the description should describe charter school responsibility for transporting
students with disabilities having IEPs that include this benefit as a related service. The
IDEA’s implementing regulation at §300.34(a) specifies that related services includes
transportation services as are required to assist a student to benefit from special
education. Thus, this requirement is not limited to a converting charter and applies even
if a school does not generally provide transportation services to its students.
d. Articulate the extent to which charter schools are required or encouraged to educate
students with significant disabilities.
One major issue that has been discussed about charter schools generally is their
recruitment, enrollment and support of students with significant disabilities. If a school
district’s charter schools do not educate an equitable proportion of these students, as the
district authorizes a larger number of charters fewer traditional schools remain available
for their education and disproportionality increases. To the extent that this
disproportionality is true for LAUSD, it could impact its ability to comply with IDEA
and MCD requirements.
LAUSD charter schools educate nearly half (5.5-6%) the percentage of students with
disabilities than do traditional LAUSD schools (11%) and a smaller rate than charter
schools statewide (6-7%). 2 Furthermore, students at charter schools generally tend to
have mild to moderate disabilities, e.g. Speech and Language Impaired (S/L) or Learning
Disabilities (LD), and they have a limited number of students with intensive needs.
There are several MCD performance outcomes that are relevant to this issue:
 Placement of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE -
ages 6-18)
< Excluding LD, S/L and OHI. No less than 51% of students are removed from
general education more than 60% of the time and no more than 49% are removed
61-100% of the time.
< Students with multiple disabilities orthopedic. No less than 23% of students are
removed from general education 60% of the time and no more than 77% are
removed 61-100% of the time.
 Home school placement/LRE. The district will increase the percentage of students
with disabilities (excluding SLD and SLI) educated in their home school:
< In kindergarten and 6th grade to 65% and in 9th grade to 60%
< In grades 1-5 to 62.0%;
< In middle school grades (7-8) to 55.2%; and in HS grades (10 and above) to
36.4%.
In the context of charter schools, a charter would be a student’s home school if the
student applied and was selected through a lottery or other approved process used by
the charter to select students.

2
LAUSD Power Point presented by Donnalyn Jacque-Anton, Associate Superintendent and Didi Nubla, Deputy
Budget Director on November 20, 2008.

7
 It would be difficult for LAUSD to achieve these performance outcomes if charter
schools do not enroll students with disabilities beyond those with typical disabilities, i.e.,
LD, SLI and OHI/ADHD. To achieve higher enrollment rates for this population, the
relevant documents should discuss LAUSD’s expectations in this regard and request
information regarding [1] recruitment, and [2] support for students with significant
disabilities. In addition, documents should describe [3] LAUSD’s authority to ensure that
such students are not denied enrollment without sufficient educational justification, and
[4] oversight of the lottery/selection process. These four areas are discussed in more
detail below.
e. Require petitions to describe how students with disabilities, including those with
significant disabilities, will be recruited.
According to the LAUSD’s Working Draft of its Charter Schools Policy, the Board of
Education expects charter schools to represent the diversity of the District community’s
student demographics, and demonstrate a primary commitment and specific outreach plan
to attract and serve all students, especially in traditionally underserved populations
(English Learners, Latino and African American students, students with disabilities, and
students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch). This expectation is consistent with
the provisions of the Education Code at §47605(b)(5)(h). 3
However, neither the Application Description, supplemental education program
description nor the Checklist addresses the petitioner’s anticipated recruitment of students
with disabilities. Within the context of race and ethnic balance, however, the Application
Description for Element 7 provides detailed information about the Means to Achieve
Racial & Ethnic Balance and requires a thorough description of the annual outreach
efforts, including:
 What methods the school will use to advertise and recruit students (flyers, newspaper
advertisements, informational fairs, etc.)
 How those outreach efforts will attain a racial and ethnic balance at the charter school
that is reflective of the District.
To get a sense of whether charter school websites contain information pertinent to
students with disabilities, 18 were randomly googled. Thirteen of the schools had a
website that was developed specifically for the school. Ten (77%) contain no description
of any special education services or supports for students with disabilities. Two of the 10
published rosters of staff that included one special education teacher; one additional
website referenced only a special education assistant trainee. Six charter schools did not
have websites but did have small references on other websites that give information about
Los Angeles schools. These six also provided no information about special education
services. (See Appendix B for more information about school websites reviewed.)
The following three websites provide special education information that would be very
interesting and inviting to concerned parents:

3
In reviewing petitions for the establishment of charter schools within the school district, the governing board of
the school district shall give preference to petitions that demonstrate the capability to provide comprehensive
learning experiences to pupils identified by the petitioner or petitioners as academically low achieving pursuant to
the standards established by the department under Section 54032 as it read prior to July 19, 2006.

8
  Kenter Canyon School has a wonderful description of their special education services,
including those for students with a variety of disabilities. It also has developed a
separate website page devoted to special education See: kentercanyon.org/about-
special.html; and http://web.me.com/sheardnicole/Site/Welcome.html
 The CHIME Charter School’s website highlights that it was originally known as the
Community Honoring Inclusive Model Education (CHIME) Project and it uses a
transdisciplinary approach where designated instructional services and therapies are
provided in the context of the regular classroom. This enables the specialists to
model special interventions for the paraprofessionals and general education teachers.
http://www.chimeinstitute.org/default.htm
 Open Magnet Charter School has a website that includes in its frequently asked
questions one about special education services. In response, the charter states:
All students who are accepted through the Choices/Magnet program are
eligible for enrollment at the Open School, regardless of ability. The
Open School has many students with special needs including students with
specific learning disabilities, physical disabilities, and students on the
autism spectrum. All of the special needs students are fully integrated into
the general education classrooms. There are no special day classes at
Open School. The school has a full-time, credentialed special education
resource teacher and a full-time assistant. LAUSD provides behavioral,
speech, and occupational therapy and adapted P.E. for students determined
eligible at their IEP. http://homepage.mac.com/opencharter/
The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights addressed the issue of
charter school recruitment of students with disabilities in its May 2000 document,
Applying Federal Civil Rights Laws to Public Charter Schools: Questions and
Answers. 4 In that document, the Department explained that students with disabilities
must be included in a charter’s recruitment activities. The charter school enrollment
process is different from that of most public schools in that students are not simply
assigned to attend a charter and (except in the case of conversion charters) they must
apply to be considered for admission. Thus, petitions should describe how students
with disabilities, especially those with significant disabilities, would be attracted and
encouraged to apply. This description should be comparable to the requirements
described above pertaining to the achievement of racial and ethnic balance.
f. Require each petitioner to describe how it will provide support for students with
disabilities, including those with significant disabilities.
Unless a charter has planned proactively for the enrollment of students with significant
disabilities, it will have difficulty providing the supports necessary for such students to be
successful. To facilitate and support this activity, LAUSD should articulate its
expectation in this regard and require the petition to address the matter fully.
g. Articulate the process LAUSD will use to review a charter schools’ belief that it is
unable to provide an appropriate placement for a student with disabilities.

4
http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/spedp/view/sped_aud/2?section=pre#60 (page 5)

9
 The special education program description articulates that a charter school is expected to
invite an LAUSD special education representative to an IEP team meeting whenever it is
anticipated that special education services outside of the charter school (e.g., in a District
school, a nonpublic or private school, etc.) will be considered. According to the
description, if an IEP is developed without District representation on the IEP team, the
charter will be fully responsible for the quality of the program and for any costs incurred
for such a placement.
This process reflects good policy with respect to what was described. However, it does
not address any authority LAUSD may have to require the charter school to expand its
provision of special education services, including supplemental aids and services, when
District staff has good reason to believe that doing so would enable a student to be
appropriately educated in the school.
The Education Code at §47606(d)(2)(A) states that a charter shall admit all pupils who
wish to attend the school. In a letter to charter school directors and principals, LAUSD
provided guidance for the enrollment of students with disabilities. 5 That guidance
contains the following key points:
 Charter schools may not refuse to enroll any student who has an IEP who would
otherwise be admitted to the school. Therefore, the student should be enrolled
immediately, even if it appears that the student might not be well served in the
school’s existing program.
 For any student with an IEP that cannot be implemented as written when the student
enrolls, convene an IEP team meeting within 30 days to discuss FAPE for the student
and make adjustments to the IEP.
 Include an LAUSD special education support unit representative at the IEP meeting if
there is a concern that the school may not be able to serve the student effectively.
 If there is a disagreement between school staff and parents, contact the Support Unit
Administrator (SUA) to determine next step.
While the letter addresses a common special education enrollment issue, it appears that
the information is neither considered to be policy nor is mandatory. In addition, there
does not appear to be other bulletins or memoranda that specifically address this or other
key special education issues through required procedures.
No documents appeared to address circumstances in which there may be a disagreement
between the SUA and the charter school administration regarding a school’s ability to
appropriately serve a student with disabilities. For example, typical disagreements arise
in school districts regarding a school’s education of a student with significant behavioral
challenges. Further impacting the discussion could be LAUSD’s payment for students
referred by a charter school to a costly nonpublic school (NPS), which could cost $27,000
to $40,000 per year. 6 Presumably, the dispute resolution process at Element 14 outlined
in the Application Description applies in this circumstance. However, that process is
5
Susan Melly, LAUSD Director, Legislation and Parent and Community Support/SELPA, Division of Special
Education, December 20, 2005.
6
LAUSD Power Point presented by Donnalyn Jacque-Anton, Associate Superintendent and Didi Nubla, Deputy
Budget Director on November 20, 2008.

10
 ultimately culminates in mediation and arbitration, with no reference to the application of
special education legal standards, including case law.
The absence of binding guidance regarding a charter school’s responsibilities with
respect to enrolling students with disabilities (including those with significant disabilities)
that are selected for admission and LAUSD’s authority when disagreements occur could
impact LAUSD compliance with IDEA, state and MCD requirements. Guidance should
be available that is based on current case law pertaining to “home school” attendance for
students with disabilities and expectations regarding the types of supports and services
charter schools should provide. As these requirements and charter school plans are
documented and reviewed during the initial petition process, there would be fewer
concerns and issues resulting from charter school provision of services to this population
of students.
h. Establish a uniform application or template for enrollment applications.
The Application Description does not require the attachment of an enrollment application
for the school or provide a model document. Thus, it appears that schools develop
unique applications that are not subject to approval or review by the District. Given the
disproportionately low enrollment of students with disabilities in charter schools,
especially those with significant disabilities, it is extremely important that the application
process does not include information that would deter a charter school from selecting
these students.
i. Articulate LAUSD oversight responsibility for the lottery/selection process when a
charter enrolls a disproportionately low proportion of students with disabilities,
including those with significant disabilities.
Although the various documents reviewed outline the lottery/selection process for
charters, there is no information describing how these processes are subject to review
and/or approval by LAUSD.
Under California law, charters are required to admit all students wishing to attend the
school unless the number seeking attendance exceeds the school's capacity. In this case,
with a few exceptions attendance is determined by a public random drawing with
preference given to students currently attending the charter and those residing in the
district. The code also states that “other preferences may be permitted by the chartering
authority on an individual school basis and only if consistent with the law.” Education
Code at §47605(d)(2)(A)and (B).
In addition, the Application Description states that the charter school is subject to the
requirements of the Crawford court order, and the school must provide a written plan to
achieve and maintain the District’s ethnic balance goal of 70:30 or 30:70 ratios. As
discussed above, the MCD also contains ratios for LRE and home school placement.
Finally, the IDEA implementing regulation specifies that for a charter school that is a
school of an LEA the school district remains responsible for ensuring that IDEA
requirements are met. 7

7
§300.209(b)(2)(i)

11
 Given the above discussion of California, IDEA and MCD requirements, it appears that
LAUSD has sufficient authority to ensure through a lottery supervision process or other
preferences that each charter school enrolls a meaningful proportion of students with
disabilities, including those with significant disabilities.
j. Revise the description pertaining to assessment. 8
The special education program description states that the charter school will:
Identify and refer students with disabilities who demonstrate early signs of
academic, social or behavioral difficulty that may require assessments for
special education eligibility and placement in a special education program.
This provision is problematic for two reasons:
 The description should refer to students suspected of having a disability rather than
students with disabilities.
 Students demonstrating “early signs of academic, social or behavioral difficulty” may
benefit from early intervening services or response to intervention (RTI) strategies.
In general, encouraging charter schools to identify and refer for special education
services students with “early signs” of difficulties may lead to false positive
identifications. Instead, LAUSD should require (or minimally encourage reward)
petitioners to describe their process for providing general education early academic
and positive behavioral interventions and supports, preferably through three tiers of
increasingly intense interventions, progress monitoring and review.
k. Revise various provisions pertaining to discipline.
Two provisions related to the Application Description and one included in the
Checklist pertaining to discipline present several issues:.
1) Positive behavior supports & manifestation determination. The special education
program description 9 states that the charter school will:
... comply with laws, including discipline. Discipline procedures will
include positive behavioral interventions. Prior to recommending
expulsion for a student with disabilities, the charter school will convene a
manifestation determination IEP.
First, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) should be
provided in a context broader than discipline and include proactive activities to
reduce the likelihood of discipline issues. Petitioners should be required or at least
encouraged to develop and implement a system of PBIS and incorporate disciplinary
consequences within that system.
Second, the subject of expulsion is much more complicated than the above
description implies and it leaves an impression that more may not be required. For
example, even if a student with disabilities who is referred for expulsion is found to
have behavior that is not a manifestation of the disability, the IEP team is required to
identify (and the school to provide) educational services that will enable the student
8
Page 2.
9
Page 3.

12
 to continue to participate in the general education curriculum (although in another
setting) and to progress toward meeting his/her IEP goals. Another example applies
to the three special circumstances 10 in which a student may be removed from the
charter school regardless of whether the behavior is a manifestation of the student’s
disability. In this case, the student must also continue to receive educational services
consistent with the statement above.
2) Expanded criteria. Problematic language also appears on the Application
Description under Element 10, Suspensions and Expulsions. Under this section,
Special Education Discipline Language for Charter Petitions, the following is
provided: 11
If it is determined [through a review committee] that the student’s
misconduct was not a manifestation of his or her disability, that the
student was appropriately placed and was receiving appropriate
services at the time of the misconduct, and that the behavior
intervention strategies were in effect and consistent with the student’s
IEP, the student may be expelled. (Emphasis added.)
The issue pertaining to expulsion when there is no manifestation of disability is
discussed above. It is unclear, however, whether the two additional criteria
(appropriate placement and receipt of services) are intended to supplement the
manifestation determination criteria or be components of the manifestation
determination. Under the IDEA, reauthorized in 2004, criteria for the manifestation
determination were revised, as follows:
a. Was the conduct caused by or did it have a direct & substantial relationship to the
disability?
b. Was the conduct the direct result of a failure to implement the IEP?
If the two additional factors included in the above guidance do not reflect LAUSD or
state policy, they should be deleted.
3) Obligations upon expulsion. In addition, the Checklist contains seven assurances to
which the petition must attest. The last pertains to expulsion: 12
If a pupil is expelled or leaves the charter school without graduating or
completing the school year for any reason, the charter school shall
notify the superintendent of the school district of the pupil’s last
known address within 30 days, and shall, upon request, provide that
school district with a copy of the cumulative record of the pupil,
including a transcript of grades or report card, and health information.
The Application Description should provide clear and complete guidance about the
expulsion process for students with disabilities and, when there is no manifestation
determination or one of the special three circumstances described above, the manner

10
The three circumstances are: Carrying or possessing a weapon; knowingly possessing illegal drugs or
selling/soliciting sale of controlled substance; or causing “serious bodily injury” to others
11
Page 13.
12
Page 1.

13
 in which the charter must provide educational services to the student to enable
him/her to continue to participate in the general education curriculum (although in
another setting) and to progress toward meeting IEP goals. A user-friendly
description of IDEA discipline procedures that may be modified for LAUSD is
provided at Appendix C.
l. Clarify child find responsibilities for conversion schools regarding students attending
private schools.
The special education program description states that the charter will conduct special
education search and find activities for private school students residing in its pre-charter
attendance areas in accordance with state, federal and District policy.
This provision is unclear in that IDEA/state provisions in this area have particular
requirements for child find when students attend a private school. In this case, the
requirements pertain to the school district in which the private school is located,
regardless of whether the student resides in that district. Thus, if LAUSD policy requires
the child find duty to be placed on the public/charter school having boundaries within
which the private school is located, the provision should be revised accordingly. Note
that parents of students residing in the school’s boundaries but attending a private school
in another school district also has the right to ask LAUSD (public/charter school) to
conduct an evaluation of their child.
m. Provide a list of website resources available to support individuals preparing charter
school petitions.
None of the documents reviewed provided any on-line resources relevant to the provision
of special education in charter schools. There are a number of resources available that
would be beneficial to petitioners, such as:
 Applying Federal Civil Rights Laws to Public Charter Schools: Questions and
Answers, US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, May 2000. 13
 Primers on Implementing Special Education in Charter Schools, provide valuable
information for operators, authorizers and state officials during various operational
phases: pre-authorization; preparing for start-up; operating a charter school;
accountability and renewal; and non-renewal, revocation, and relinquishment. The
primers were developed through a grant to the National Association of State Directors
of Special Education (NASDSE). 14
5. Some special education charter school funding policies may have unanticipated negative
consequences.
One of the difficult balancing acts required for the administration of charter schools is the
anticipation of and having the fiscal resources necessary to fund unusually high special
education costs. In part, the fear of these high costs and an insufficient fiscal base may deter
some charter schools from aggressively recruiting and serving students with disabilities,
including those with significant disabilities. With the many schools of LAUSD, there is an

13
http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/spedp/view/sped_aud/2?section=pre#60
14
Funding for the primers was received by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)
by the U.S. Dept. of Education. http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/spedp/print/uscs_docs/spedp/operators.htm

14
 economy of scale that is more able to support high costs that may be associated with one
student (e.g., nursing, physical and occupational therapy, paraprofessional support, assistive
technology, etc.). In fact, providing such services may not be so much a function of whether
the services may be brought to a school site to support a student but the ability to find and
pay for them. While this review does not include an in-depth study of charter school funding
policy, the following fiscal issues are noted:
 High cost of litigation. LAUSD has established a sound policy related to charter school
responsibility for certain costs related to due process and settlement agreements that may
have unanticipated consequences. According to the special education program
description, charter schools are responsible for attorney fees and costs when parents
prevail in a due process hearing or settlement agreement because of a charter’s alleged
failure to fulfill its responsibilities under state/federal special education requirements.
While this policy supports charter school accountability, it should be noted that few
schools may have the funding base to pay out a very large unanticipated claim.
 NPS funding. Apparently, LAUSD funds any costly placements of students with
disabilities from charter schools to NPS. 15 Although such placements could have a
disproportionate impact on a school’s budget, the absence of any cost-sharing could
provide an incentive for charter schools to try to justify such placements rather than focus
on ways in which the student could be supported appropriately at the charter school.
 Funding based on ADA. According to the June 25, 2002 Policy for Charter Schools:
Charter schools receive their allocated share of AB602 special education
funds. The allocated amount will be calculated using a funding model based
on pupil population (average daily attendance).
This funding scheme, however, is based on a presumption that school districts educate
students having a need for specialized services that ranges from mild to very intense.
When charters receive the same per student funding regardless of special education
needs, the formula provides no incentive for enrolling those with more intense needs.
6. Neither the 2002 Charter School Policy nor guidance for the Initial Application
adequately addresses the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) facility accessibility
requirements.
The Initial Application Checklist at Element 6 (Health and Safety) clearly states that the
charter application must contain an assurance that the schools’ facilities will comply with a
variety of requirements, including the ADA. However, neither the 2002 Charter School
Policy nor Initial Application Description provides any information about compliance with
the ADA. The Policy only specifies that a potential site will be inspected and evaluated by a
District engineer or facilities staff for structural issues, child safety issues, adjacent uses
(such as drug rehabilitation centers). The Initial Application Description only requires
information pertaining to insurance, indemnification, and asbestos management. The
document’s last section on facilities states that a “certificate of occupancy” is required at
least 45 days before school is scheduled to open in the facility. However, it is unclear
whether this certificate includes a review of ADA compliance.

15
LAUSD Power Point presented by Donnalyn Jacque-Anton, Associate Superintendent and Didi Nubla, Deputy
Budget Director on November 20, 2008.

15
 In summary, given the potential costs and serious programmatic issues associated with ADA
accessibility, LAUSD should clearly articulate the requirements in this area, ensure that
facilities are inspected for ADA compliance and specify the consequences of noncompliance.
7. The Checklist cites an incorrect citation to require details for funding and providing
special education services; the information required is unclear.
Item 13 of the Checklist requires an agreement between the charter school and its sponsoring
agency to detail funding and services for students receiving special education services.
Section 47612(a)(2) is cited as the statutory reference. Section 47612(a) specifies that a
charter school is under the exclusive control of school districts for purposes of the State
Constitution for appropriation of public moneys; that provision does not have a section (1) or
(2). Because the cited statutory reference could not be located, it is not clear what
information this provision is intended to produce.
The description of funding and provision of special education services is broad and
complicated. While guidance for addressing special education services is provided
somewhat in LAUSD’s special education program description, that document does not
discuss funding. More detailed guidance should clarify the intent of this item.
8. Element 4 (Governance) does not fully identify all of the federal laws required to have a
grievance process.
This element provides for the designation of at least one employee to coordinate compliance
efforts, posting of grievance procedures, including investigations of noncompliance and
compliance with relevant admission and employment relevant to Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section
504). However, it does not address two additional federal laws that also require grievance
procedures: Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (race, color and national origin) and the
ADA.
9. The Application Description and Checklist are not aligned with an Education Code
requirement.
The Checklist identifies 14 areas for assessment, the first five of which are identical to the
Education Code: a description of the educational program of the school, designed, among
other things, to [1] identify those whom the school is attempting to educate, [2] what it
means to be an "educated person" in the 21st century, and [3] how learning best occurs. [4]
The goals identified in that program shall include the [5] objective of enabling pupils to
become self-motivated, competent, and lifelong learners. 16
The Checklist also identifies a sixth area that is similar to but not the same as the one
described in the statutory reference. The Checklist cites the requirement for specific goals
for providing and ensuring equal access to academically low achievement students. The
Education Code refers to a mandated preference to petitions that demonstrate the capability
to provide comprehensive learning experiences to students identified by the petitioner as
academically low achieving. 17 A school may provide academically low achieving students

16
§47605(b)(5)(A)
17
§47605(b)(5)(h)

16
 access but not demonstrate the capability to actually provide comprehensive learning
experiences. This demonstration should be required to meet the State’s requirements.

Charter Renewal
According to the LAUSD Charter School Renewal Components (Renewal Components)
document, revised September, 2008, the renewal petition is very similar to the initial charter
petition, but with a few important differences. The renewal process provides the charter with an
opportunity to look back and reflect on the initial charter term, analyze strengths and weaknesses,
and assess the extent to which the school has achieved the goals it initially set out to achieve.
The Renewal Components specifically includes the subgroup of students with disabilities (along
with other subgroups) in the discussion of student achievement and educational performance
where the charter operator is asked to answer questions, which include:
 Is the school an academic success as it relates to student achievement and educational performance?
 Are all student subgroups, including English Language Learners (ELL) and students with
special needs showing progress? How do you know?
 Is your school effectively closing the achievement gap?
 How has the program met the needs of subgroups, including students with disabilities?
While these questions focus on the subgroup of students with disabilities they do not address the
issues discussed above with reference to the initial application process, such as the proportion
and severity of students with disabilities enrolled in a charter school.
The Renewal Criteria and Findings (Renewal Checklist) reviews charter performance in four
areas: 1) student achievement and educational performance, 2) governance and organizational
management; 3) fiscal operations; and 4) fulfilling the charter. The Renewal Checklist and
relevant parts of the District’s revised working draft of January 29, 2009 are discussed below.

1. Student Achievement & Educational Performance

In the area of student achievement and educational performance, LAUSD staff review and
analyze data regarding the extent to which the charter provided a sound education and
increasing academic achievement for all students. This area has eight subsections, one
pertaining to special education only and another that is broader in scope but specifically
includes students with disabilities.
a. Section 1.6 (Special Education)
The area of special education is addressed at Section 1.6 in the current Renewal
Checklist. Although Section 1 pertains to achievement and performance, there is no data
reported in this subsection relevant to this topic. Instead, the following areas are
addressed:
 Adherence to all federal and state laws pertaining to special education
services, including Chanda Smith Consent Decree and related outcomes;
 Fulfillment of the specific special education instructional plan and goals as set
forth in the petition; and

17
  There is clear understanding and agreement regarding respective roles and
responsibilities of parties involved in contracted Special Education Services.
Numerous deficiencies pertaining to the Initial Application were discussed above that are
relevant to the second area: fulfillment of the petition’s special education instructional
plan and goals. While indicators may be met, they are only as good as their content.
Further, there is no information to indicate whether all three subcomponents have equal
weight. For example, compliance with relevant special education requirements may be
more important than understanding and agreeing about roles pertaining to special
education contract services, especially when the latter does not impact the former.
The Draft Renewal Checklist modifies this area by deleting the second two components.
The first of these two components, special education instructional plan/goals, is
addressed in a revised Criterion 4 section and will be addressed below. While it is not
clear why the District eliminated the third section pertaining to collaboration between
parties involved in contracted special education services, it may be due to a belief that
sufficient collaboration would be necessary to meet the outcome measure related to
compliance with federal/state laws, including the Chanda Smith Consent Decree. Some
inquiry may be appropriate to determine whether potential issues are likely to go
unaddressed if this provision continues to be deleted in the final document.
b. Academic Achievement & Performance)
Several of the subsections (1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.7) review data related to academic
achievement and performance using both absolute and growth measures. This data,
however, is not disaggregated by subgroups. The Working Draft Renewal Checklist
includes this information in different subsections (Category 1, 1.1, 1.2, and 1.5) but it
maintains the oversight of not reporting subgroup performance.
The absence of subgroup performance appears to be in direct contravention of LAUSD’s
2002 Charter School Policy, which states the following at page 14:
The District expects that all students in charter schools, including
subgroup populations, meet their targeted growth and demonstrate
increased learning, in keeping with District’s mission of reducing the
achievement gap for low-income students. Failure to meet growth targets
for three or the four years prior to renewal may result in non-renewal of
the charter. (Emphasis added.)
The importance of this requirement is reinforced on page 16 of the Policy:
Accountability for increased student learning plays a considerable role
on whether or not a charter is renewed. The charter is expected to meet
API target growth overall and for each student population, and provide
evidence of reducing the achievement gap between minority and white
students, if applicable. (Emphasis added.)
One of the most important accountability measures of No Child Left Behind has been the
requirement of subgroup reporting to ensure that a higher performance by some
subgroups do not mask a very low performance by others. The absence of this critical

18
 measure in the current and proposed Renewal Checklist is an important oversight and
arguably violates the District’s Charter School Policy.
c. Section 1.8 (Demographics)
Last for discussion in this area is Section l.8, which includes three subsections that
address a charter’s demographics; the Working Draft Renewal Checklist modifies this
information to some extent. Both the current and revised draft are discussed below.
1) Allowable Demographic Ranges.
The first component states the following:
The school’s demographic ranges (based on CBEDS data) are within
five percent of the median enrollment demographics of comparable
district schools 18 , including ranges for traditionally low-performing
subgroups: students with disabilities, ELLs, students eligible for free
and reduced lunch, African American students and Latino students.
The Draft allows a 15 percent differential for all subgroups except for
students with disabilities, which remains at 5 percent.
In relevant part, this component analyzes whether the charter is within five percent of
the median enrollment of students with disabilities in comparable district schools.
This provision’s focus on the representation of students with disabilities in charter
schools is positive. However, comparing a charter school’s enrollment to other
neighboring schools may not provide a meaningful measure for a number of reasons:
 Depending on the extent to which the comparison schools educate LAUSD
students with disabilities from other schools in special day classes, the number
and percentage of students with disabilities in the comparison schools may be
artificially high. Conversely, if none of these comparison schools have been
“receiving schools” for such students and are not educating their home school
students with significant disabilities, the presence of students with disabilities
may be artificially low.
 Some of the comparison schools may enroll a disproportionate number of students
with disabilities and their eligibility may not be based on appropriate policies,
procedures and practices. As a result, they may not be a valid comparison group.
Also, there are several areas that may need clarity related to the standard for
comparison; discussion with a statistician may be useful to answer the following
questions:
 Is median the appropriate measure for comparison?
 Does median refer to the number or percentage of students with disabilities?
Comparing a raw number of students is meaningless unless based on its
proportion to the total student population.
 Does the five percent differential refer to an actual five percent of the median or
five percentage points of the median? For example, assuming the medium refers
18
The LAUSD Charter Schools Division Renewal Criteria and Findings define comparable neighborhood schools
as follows: Grades 6-12 are schools within a 5-mile radius; Grades K-5 schools are within a 2-mile radius.

19
 Suggestions for Consideration of Data Pertaining to Students with Disabilities
Other methods for analyzing demographic data pertaining to students with disabilities
for charter schools seeking renewal are described below.
 Students with Typical Disabilities
Determine the districtwide average of students with disabilities enrolled in similar
noncharter schools and grades comparable to the charter being reviewed. Only
consider students with typical disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities,
speech/language, mild cognitive disabilities, etc.) Identify a reasonable
differential from the identified average (i.e., a few percentage points) to establish
an acceptable range for the charter’s review.
For example, if a charter high school is seeking renewal, the District would gather
data from its comprehensive high schools (excluding students without typical
disabilities) and determine the overall average. If the overall average is 15
percent, the charter’s allowable range may be from 12 to 18 percent.
 Students with Significant Disabilities
Assuming for discussion that LAUSD expects charter schools to provide an equal
educational opportunity to students with nontypical disabilities, the review of a
renewal petition will depend on whether the charters are expected to educate such
students through inclusive services within each school and/or through a clustered
and collaborative service model.
In the first instance, each renewal petition may consider the extent to which such
students have been included in the applicable charter school using the method
described above for students with typical disabilities. In the second instance, the
District might annually review all of the charter schools to determine whether, as
a group, they are educating a comparable proportion of students to those that are
educated in a group of similar noncharter schools.
If any charter school (individually or as a group in the case of students with
significant disabilities) is found to have deficient enrollment practices, the District
would then focus its review on the aggressiveness and meaningfulness of recruitment
activities and appropriate school supports available for these students.
2) Recruitment & Diversity Targets
The second demographic component states the following:
Focused and effective implementation of the charter’s strategic
recruitment plan and progress toward its stated diversity goals/ranges,
as well as admission policies. The Draft revised this statement as
follows: Established and effectively implemented a strategic

20
 recruitment plan that provides access for members of underserved
groups. The statement deletes reference to admission policies.
The current Renewal Checklist’s second component focuses on effective
implementation of a charter’s strategic recruitment plan and progress toward its stated
diversity goals/ranges, and its admission policies. As discussed in the Initial
Application section, recruitment and diversity only addressed race/ethnicity.
Therefore, unless this area of review is expanded in the initial application/renewal
processes, it will continue to provide no data relevant to students with disabilities.
Further, the Draft Renewal Checklist deletes the reference to admission policies.
Charters that have implemented excellent recruitment plans for students with
disabilities may nevertheless enroll proportionately few students because of
admission policies and practices. The deletion of this information could eliminate
important information relevant to this issue.
3) Enrollment Diversity Targets.
The last demographic component states:
The school has met or made significant progress towards its
enrollment diversity targets listed in its charter (as benchmarked
against comparable district schools).
As discussed above, the Initial Application does not include any targets for
enrolling students with disabilities. Therefore, there are no targets reflected in
this document. The Working Draft deletes this provision but addresses
adherence to fulfillment of charter components in Criterion 4; this issue is
discussed further below.
2. Governance and Organizational Management
Section 2.5, Facility and Learning Environment, addresses whether the school site is well
maintained and ensures the health and safety of students and staff. In neither the current
provision nor the Draft Renewal Checklist (2.3) does this section address whether a charter
school has complied with ADA structural requirements. Given the importance of physical
access and its impact on health and safety, the District must ensure that each charter school
has complied with this important legal provision.
3. Fulfillment of Charter
The Working Draft Renewal Checklist proposes a material shift from the current Criterion 4,
which requires adherence to all aspects of the approved charter and material amendments.
The draft revision provides for the charter school to meet all of the following four areas:
 API, AYP and CST targets stated in the charter.
 EL reclassification, special education, graduation-related and other academic
performance targets.
 Enrollment diversity, attendance and retention targets stated in the charter.
 Targets stated in the charter regarding its instructional programs, enrichment, student
services and parental involvement.

21
 The following comments apply to the proposed revision of Criterion 4:
a. Lack of any targets for the subgroup of students with disabilities.
As discussed above, a major deficiency in the Initial Application is that it has no
requirements for a potential charter school to provide performance targets for students
with disabilities. Unless this deficiency is corrected, there are no targets relevant for this
subgroup of students and the school may be approved in spite of their extremely and
comparatively low performance rates.
b. Special Education
 As discussed above in section 1.a. pertaining to the area of special education, the
subsection for “fulfillment of the specific Special Education instructional plan and goals
as set forth in the petition” has been deleted and presumably is intended to be addressed
in the second subsection of Criterion 4 (EL reclassification, special education,
graduation-related and other academic performance targets).
While the current Renewal Checklist devotes one subsection solely to special education, ,
the draft revision would include it with three other significant issues. With this change, it
is very unlikely that any significant issues involving a charter’s compliance with its
described special education instructional plan and goals would have much impact if any
on its renewal when other areas are compliant. The District’s proposed Refined Scoring
System is not likely to overcome this problem:
4 = School met at least 90% of the requirements
3 = School met 75%-89% of the requirements
2 = School met 50%-74% of the requirements
1 = School met less than 50% of the requirements
Thus, with other areas being highly compliant, it is possible for a charter to receive a “3”
and maybe a “4” even though it may have significant special education issues.
4. Overall Performance
None of the documents reviewed indicate if the four areas of the Renewal Components are
weighted in importance, e.g., whether achievement and performance is weighted more than
governance or organizational management. The same lack of differential consideration
seems to apply to each subsection in any given area. As a result, some areas that may be less
important than others are considered equally. If an overall rating is higher than two,
conditions may be recommended due to lower ratings in certain subsections; however, these
subsections are not identified. To this end, the Renewal Components do not seem to reflect
the District’s commitment to the principle that [a] quality authorizer designs and implements
a transparent and rigorous process that uses comprehensive data to make merit-based
renewal decisions. 19
The relatively small overall weight apparently provided to equitable access by students with
disabilities and the provision of appropriate special education services may explain why no

19
National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

22
 information relevant to this subgroup of students was included in the District’s March 24,
2009 rationale for not renewing two charters. 20

Conclusion
In conclusion, LAUSD has taken steps to proactively address charter schools’ equitable and
appropriate provision of special education services to students with disabilities. The above
analysis and comments are offered to support this effort and provide suggestions for
strengthening the charter school authorization and renewal process to promote higher academic
outcomes for students with disabilities and to ensure compliance with relevant IDEA, state and
MCD requirements.

20
Charter of Los Angeles International Charter High School and Opportunities Unlimited Charter High School and
to approve Equitas Academy Charter School

23
 Appendix A
Operators: Special Education Requirements and Including Students with
Disabilities in Charter Schools 21

The questions below were included in the above-referenced document, which is one in a series of
primers developed by the Special Education Technical Assistance for Charter Schools
Project (SPEDTACS) and published in June 2004. The project was supported through funds
awarded to the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). The
questions are a useful basis for a charter school’s presentation of the manner in which it will
carry out special education requirements and include students with disabilities in its school.
Some of these questions have been addressed by California’s Education Code and LAUSD. In
addition, questions may be formulated to address each charter’s recruitment of various types of
students with disabilities, including those with significant disabilities, and any additional
information relevant to the provision of services for students with significant disabilities.
Funding for Special Education
 Is there a formula for determining how much special education funding to include in our
budget?
 What is the formula and how is it determined?
 What funds will we receive for special education services? (e.g., federal, state, local funds,
fundraising)
Space and Facilities
 Where will we conduct student evaluations?
 Where will we conduct IEP meetings?
 Where can we store confidential student records?
 Where will we provide (pullout) services?
 Where can related services personnel meet with individual students?
 Where will we store supplies and equipment used by students with disabilities (e.g.,
educational, medical, mobility, assistive technology)?
 Are entrances, classrooms, common areas and bathrooms accessible to individuals, including
adults, with physical disabilities?
 Who will make repairs to ensure school remains accessible to students with disabilities?
Human Resources
 How many students will the school enroll?
 How many teachers will I need to hire?
 How many special education teachers will I need to hire?
 What kind of certification will the teachers need?
 Can I hire dual-certified teachers?
 Can I hire part-time or retired special education teachers?
 Can we use student teachers from area universities?
 What type of related services personnel will we need?
 How will we obtain these services and contract with these individuals?
 What other types of services will our school need?

21
http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/spedp/print/uscs_docs/spedp/operators.htm

24
  Legal counsel with special education expertise
 Accountants/bookkeepers/number crunchers
Curriculum
 What curriculum will my school offer?
 How does our curriculum align with the state’s suggested curriculum or standards for student
learning?
 How will we modify the curriculum to address the unique needs of children with disabilities?
 How can we train general and special education teachers to modify/adapt the curriculum for
children with disabilities in inclusive classrooms?
 What types of assistive technology will be needed by our students?
Service Provision
 How will we provide special education related services (e.g., occupational and physical
therapy, orientation and mobility, speech therapy)?
 What should our Child Find activities look like?
 How will we conduct student identification, evaluation and special education determination
meetings?
 Who will participate in IEP development and implementation?
 What types of special staff or consultants will we need to implement our students’ IEPs?
Professional Development
 How will we provide my teachers with professional development?
 What type of specialized professional development will be needed by school staff (including
teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators) to support children with disabilities?
 Does the LEA or the SEA operate a professional development program or network that I can
utilize?
Administration
 Who will administer the special education program?
 Who will be responsible for collecting, managing and reporting data related to children with
disabilities?
 What equipment/supplies/programs will be needed to collect and store data and records?
How will we obtain these? What training will be needed to use these efficiently and
appropriately?
 Can we create our own system to administer special education or do we need to adopt the
policies/procedures dictated by my authorizer, local district, other administrative unit (e.g., a
BOCES or a Cooperative)?
Transportation
 Will we provide students with transportation?
 Can we access district or state transportation dollars to offset costs?
 How will we meet transportation needs of students who receive transportation as a related
service that is required by their IEP?
 How will we arrange transportation for a student in a wheelchair?

25
 Appendix B
Information Pertinent to Students with Disabilities: Survey of a Few Websites

Websites with Excellent Information Pertaining to Students with Disabilities, Including Those
with Significant Disabilities
 Kenter Canyon School http://www.kentercanyon.org/about-special.html and
http://web.me.com/sheardnicole/Site/Welcome.html
 CHIME http://www.chimeinstitute.org/history.htm
 Open Magnet Charter School http://homepage.mac.com/opencharter/

Websites with No Apparent Information Pertaining to Students with Disabilities, Including

Those with Significant Disabilities
Academia Advance: http://avance.camote.org/about.html
Accelerated Charter: http://www.accelerated.org/
Alain Leroy Locke Charter http://www.lockehs.org/
Colfax Charter Elementary http://www.colfaxelementary.org/index.php?section=1&page=3
Ivy Academia http://www.ivyacademia.com/
KIPP Academy of Opportunity: http://www.kippla.org/KAO/about/About-KIPP-LA.cfm
Pacifica Community School: http://pacificaschool.org/
New Millennium Charter HS: http://www.newmillenniumschool.org/home.aspx
Larchmont Charter School http://www.larchmontcharter.org/
Wisdom Academy for Young Scientists: http://wisdomacademy.org/about.html

26
 Appendix C
IDEA Discipline Procedures
Sue Gamm, Public Consulting Group

SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT

I. Special Circumstances: Can remove a student for up to 45-school days IAES 22
WITHOUT a Manifestation Determination.
Applies when at school, on school premises, or going to or at a school function under the
district’s jurisdiction, the student:
1. Carries or possesses a weapon;
2. Knowingly possesses illegal drugs or sells/solicits sale of controlled substance; (Note:
alcohol and tobacco are not “controlled substances”; or
3. Causes “serious bodily injury” to others: Involves substantial risk of death; extreme
physical pain; protracted and obvious disfigurement; or protracted loss or impairment of
the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.
II. Process
B. IEP Team. Determines:
1. Continuation of Educational Services. Must provide services to student that
enable him/her to continue to participate in general education curriculum (although in
another setting) and to progress toward meeting.
2. IAES Setting. If home instruction is being used for an IAES, care must be taken to
ensure that the services will satisfy the above requirements.
3. FBA/BIP. Conduct, as appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and
design a behavioral intervention plan (BIP) to address the student’s behavior related
to the violation so it doesn’t recur.
C. Parental Notice. On date the district decides to remove a student to an IAES or another
setting, must notify parents of decision and provide procedural safeguards notice.
III. Right to Expedited Due Process Hearing (During process, student stays in
IAES)
A. Expedited Due Process Hearing. Parents 23 who disagree with IAES appropriateness
may request an expedited due process hearing to contest services.
B. Discipline Hearing. Parents who disagree with a factual basis for a disciplinary removal
may request a hearing under the regular Code of Student Conduct
C. Placement During Appeal. Student remains in the IAES pending the due process
hearing process.
IV. To Extend IAES:
If engaging in an act that constitutes a Special Circumstance would require removal for
more than 45 school days the IEP Team may conduct a manifestation determination and

22
Interim alternative educational setting
23
Information pertinent to parent(s) is relevant for guardian(s), foster parents and surrogate parents, also.

27
 take actions described in the procedures on the following pages. Begin the process
sufficiently early in the 45-school day time period to ensure it is completed by the end of this
time period. All of the procedures beginning at Section 2, below, apply. Parents and
district representatives may agree to a change in placement pursuant to the IEP
process.

NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENT

i. Determine if Removal Constitutes a Change in Placement

A. Criteria. The removal is –

1. Not more than 10 consecutive school days or
2. More than 10 total school days but does not create a Pattern of Removals that
constitute a change in placement
B. Pattern of Removals Factors. The following factors are considered to determine if
the removal constitutes a pattern and therefore a change in placement:
1. Behavior is substantially similar to behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the
series of removals; and additional factors combine to
2. Length of each suspension (e.g., 1 day, 4 days, etc.)
3. Total cumulative days of suspensions (e.g., 11 days, 14 days, etc.)
4. Proximity of (time between) suspensions (e.g., 1 week apart, 2 months apart, etc.)
Also, consider whether suspensions are: from the same class on a regular basis; on the
same day of the week; at the same time of day; for the same activity; involving same staff
or other students. If so, consider whether an FBA should be completed to guide
development or revision of a behavior intervention plan.
If the removals constitute a pattern, follow the process below for Change of Placement at
Section 2 below.
II. Removal is NOT a Change of Placement (Less than 10 Consecutive days
& No Pattern of Suspensions)
A. On or before 11th day of total suspensions, must continue to provide educational
services.
B. Determine services and IAES setting in consultation with at least 1 of the student’s
teachers:
1. Standard. Must provide services to student that enable him/her to continue to
participate in general ed curriculum (although in another setting) and to
progress toward meeting IEP goals
2. FBI/BIP. Conduct, as appropriate, an FBA and design a BIP to address the
student’s behavior related to the disciplinary violation so it doesn’t recur.
3. Extent of Services & Type of Instruction: Depends on the length of removal,
extent to which the student was removed previously and his/her needs and
educational goals. For example, students removed for only a few days and

28
 performing near grade level wouldn’t likely need same level of services as one with
significant learning difficulties and performing well below grade level.

III. Removal IS a Change in Placement (Pattern of Removals Exists)

A. Process
1. Parental Notice: On date decide to remove student, must notify parents of decision
and provide procedural safeguards notice.
2. Set up IEP Meeting: Call the parent to request participation and immediately
confirm with an IEP Notice form. (Document at least 3 attempts to contact parent if
contact is unsuccessful. Follow IEP procedures to review and communicate IEP
changes.)
3. Manifestation Determination. Determine within 10 school days of decision to
change placement. Based on review of all relevant information, including IEP, any
teacher observations and any relevant information provided by parents, answer
these 2 questions:
a. Was conduct caused by or have direct & substantial relationship to
disability?
b. Was conduct the direct result of a failure to implement the IEP? (If so, the
principal/designee must take immediate steps to ensure the identified
deficiencies are remedied.)
Manifestation is present if the answer to either question is “yes.”
4. Behavior is NOT Manifested
a. May apply to the student relevant disciplinary procedures in the same manner
applicable to students without disabilities except educational services must
continue consistent with the standard below
b. IEP Team: Identifies educational services that will enable the student to continue
to participate in general education curriculum (although in another setting) and to
progress toward meeting IEP goals
2. Behavior IS Manifestation of Disability
a. FBA. Complete an FBA (unless one has previously been completed)
b. BIP. IEP Team designs a BIP. If one was developed previously, the IEP Team
reviews and modifies the plan, as necessary, to address the behavior so it won’t
reoccur.
c. Student’s Placement. Return the student to the placement from which (s)he
was removed unless the parent and school officials agree to a change of
placement as part of the BIP
d. Injurious Behavior. If the principal/designee believes that the student’s
behavior is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others if s(he)
remains in his/her placement, the district may request an expedited due process
hearing.

29
 B. Right to Expedited Due Process Hearing
1. Expedited Due Process Hearing
a. Parents. For parents who disagree with the manifestation determination or
IAES/services appropriateness
b. District. For district if staff members believe a student’s behavior that is
manifested by the disability is substantially likely to result in injury to the student
or to others.
2. Regular Discipline Hearing. Parents who disagree with the factual basis for a
disciplinary removal may request a hearing under the district’s Code of Student
Conduct
3. Placement During Appeal. Unless parents and the district agree otherwise –
a. Behavior is NOT Manifestation of Disability. Student remains in the IAES or
other setting pending the due process hearing process.
b. Behavior IS Manifestation of Disability. Student remains in placement (s)he
was in at the time of the disciplinary event in question.

Students without an IEP Plan Who Violate Code of Conduct

I. Deemed To Have Knowledge (Thought to Be a Student with a Disability). The district is

deemed to have knowledge that a student may have a disability if, prior to the behavior
resulting in a disciplinary action any of the following occurred:
A. Parent expressed concern in writing to supervisory or administrative personnel, or
student’s teacher about a need for special education and related services;
B. Parent requested an evaluation; or
C. Student’s teacher or other school personnel expressed specific concerns about student’s
pattern of behavior demonstrated directly to director of special education or other
supervisory personnel
If any of these circumstances are present, the district must consider the disciplinary action
as if the student has a disability.
II. No Knowledge. The district is not deemed to have knowledge when:
A. Parent did not allow an initial evaluation of the student
B. Parent refused special education and related services for the student or
C. The student was evaluated and was determined not to have disability.
If any of these circumstances are present, the student may be subjected to the same
disciplinary measures applied to those without disabilities engaging in similar behaviors.
III. Request for Evaluation during Time Period of Disciplinary Measures
Conduct the evaluation in expedited manner but the student remains in educational
placement determined by the district pending the evaluation results. If student’s determined
to have a disability develop an IEP, provide special education and related services and
reconsider the placement in light of the new information.

30
 Sue Gamm, Esq.
Educational Strategies & Support

Biography

Sue Gamm is the former Chief Specialized Services Officer for the Chicago Public Schools
(CPS) where she was responsible for the management of special education, student support
services, alternative education, and safe and drug free programs. With the Office for Civil
Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education, she served as an assistant civil rights attorney
and Division Director with responsibility for elementary and secondary compliance and technical
assistance activities in Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Since her retirement from CPS, Sue has worked with a variety of national organizations
including the Council of Great City Schools, Urban Special Education Leadership Collaborative,
and the Public Consulting Group. Independently and through these groups, she has provided
consultation services to a number of states (IL, RI and NV) and school districts, including those
in New York City, Los Angeles, San Diego, Boston, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Baltimore,
Washington, St. Paul, St. Louis, Hartford, Yonkers, Rochester, Charleston (SC); and several
school districts and a charter school organization in Illinois. Sue has testified about special
education matters before the U.S. Senate Finance Committee, the U.S. Senate HELP
Committee, the Illinois legislature, and the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special
Education’s Accountability Systems Task Force.
From her unique perspective as an attorney and former Federal official, senior large school
district administrator and special educator, Sue has shared her knowledge of IDEA and its
related issues at numerous national, state and local conferences. In addition to writing
numerous articles, periodicals and special education policy and procedural manuals, she co-
authored with Dr. Thomas Hehir Special Education: From Legalism to Collaboration, in Law and
School Reform: Six Strategies for Promoting Educational Equity. Sue is also the author of three
LRP Publications: Disproportionality in Special Education: Determining When and Why
Overidentification of Minority Students Occurs; Cracking the Code: IDEA and NCLB Alternate
Assessment Rules Made Simple; and When OCR Comes Calling: An Insider’s Guide to
Handling Disability Complaint Investigations and Compliance Reviews.

31