Civil Grand Jury Report Case 12-13c*

The District agreed with CDE and the Grand Jury report that of our 3,800 Business Services Chief Business Official students receiving Special Education services, eight students did not receive a written psycho-educational report at their Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting as required by EC 65327. One student's report did not contain the required verbiage of using appropriate assessments for second language students. The District agrees with the finding of noncompliance.

The District agreed with CDE and the Grand Jury report that of our 3,800 students receiving Special Education services, three students did not have an IEP meeting within the required timeline of 60 days when an assessment form has been signed as required by EC 56381 (a) (2). The District agrees with the finding of noncompliance.

The District agreed with CDE and the Grand Jury report that multiple psychological assessments are used, as well as, academic assessments for determining whether a pupil is an individual with exceptional needs. The District agrees with the finding of compliance.

The District agreed with CDE and the Grand Jury report that the District Modesto City Schools failed to properly offer an assessment through an assessment plan when the IEP team 426 Locust Street recommended further evaluation. The District agrees with the finding of noncompliance. Modesto California 95351 209,550.3301 www.mcs4kids.com COMMUNICATE * COLLABORATE * CELEBRATE Page

The District agreed with CDE and the Grand Jury report that there was insufficient evidence to support the compliant allegation that the District failed to prevent the use of official authority by an employee to intimidate, coerce or threaten another employee to keep them from assisting a parent of a pupil with exceptional needs to obtain services or accommodations (EC 56046). The District agrees with the finding of compliance. <b>

</b> The District agreed with CDE and the Grand Jury report that the allegation of discrimination in the population of special education students that actually receive completed tests and testing results is unsubstantiated. The District agrees with the findings that the allegation is unsubstantiated. The following findings were only included in the Grand Jury report:

The District disagrees with the Grand Jury report that there were lapses of SELPA management in regards to the oversight of one of the high schools' Special Education department. The SELPA provides training and assistance to District personnel on legal compliance and required documentation for IEP paperwork. It is the specific site administration that is responsible for the evaluation and monitoring of Special Education site personnel. This is because the site principal and assistant principal actively participate in the IEP meetings, not the District management personnel. The District agrees there were lapses on the part of the assistant principal to monitor the Special Education program. The District agrees with the Grand Jury that personnel issues and disagreements between staff at the school may have contributed to problems. The District followed appropriate progressive discipline procedures with the assistant principal in regards to the monitoring of the Special Education program. We find the term "systemic" to be vague and ambiguous. The District disagrees with the statement, "the problems at a district high school program may be systemic." The District has randomly pulled and reviewed in detail 50 files from our 7 high schools in the month of May 2012 and did not find one file without appropriate assessment documentation. Finding #F8: The District agrees with the Grand Jury that the District was not financially reimbursed for testing upon receiving IEP reports. Responses to