REPORT OF FINDINGS

RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES

KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND EARLY LEARNING
CORRECTIVE ACTION STATUS REPORT
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Introduction and Purpose of the Review

Jefferson County Public Schools (JCPS) has been under a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) for
violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) since October, 2017
resulting from the management audit that occurred in April, 2017. The Division of Learning
Services (DLS) led the IDEA section of the monitoring and is responsible for oversight of the
CAP. Due to the recent reorganization of the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE), the
Division of Learning Services has been elevated to an office and is now the Office of Special
Education and Early Learning (OSEEL).
The OSEEL returned to JCPS to conduct a follow-up visit from September 10-21, 2018. The
purpose of the onsite visit was to determine the impact CAP activities have made at the school-
and student-levels.
The October 9, 2017 Report of Findings Related to Exceptional Children Services outlined the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions for 10 areas of noncompliance under the IDEA. The follow-up
visit reexamined nine of the 10 issues. The tenth issue regarding the special education
cooperative was not addressed as part of the follow-up visit. Additional findings that were not
discovered during the 2017 onsite visit are also captured within this report.
Evidence Considered
OSEEL staff conducted scheduled onsite visits to the following locations:
 District Central Office
 Atherton High School
 Breckenridge Metro High School
 Byck Elementary School
 Cane Run Elementary School
 Carter Elementary School
 Crosby Middle School
 Crums Lane Elementary School
 Jacob Elementary School
 Medora Elementary School
 Minor Daniels Academy
 Olmsted Academy North
 Olmsted Academy South
 Roosevelt Perry Elementary School
 The Academy at Shawnee
 Waller Williams Environmental School

1
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
OSEEL staff also made unscheduled onsite visits to the following schools:
 Noe Middle School
 Thomas Jefferson Middle School
 Waller Williams Environmental School
 Churchill Park School
 Binet School
 Newburg Middle School
The following investigative activities were conducted:
 formal interviews with Jefferson County Staff consisting of:
 central office staff
o school employees
o school administrators
o 50 elementary students
o 18 middle school students
o 15 high school students
 a review of the following data conducted prior to the visit:
o district special education policies and procedures
o district Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook
o district’s website
o 2017-18 IDEA Child Count Data
o 2017-18 removal data for students with disabilities
o 2017-18 physical restraint and seclusion data for students with disabilities
 record reviews for 121 individual students with disabilities including:
o due process files
o behavior records
o evaluation information
o attendance records
o enrollment records
Student records were chosen based on in-school and out-of-school removals, removals to Interim
Alternative Educational Settings (IAES), and the use of physical restraint and seclusion for
students with disabilities. Additional student IDEA due process records were chosen randomly
based on initial evaluations conducted during the 2017-18 school year and preschool students
transitioning from Part C (First Steps) to preschool during the 2017-18 school year.
Executive Summary
The original Division of Learning Services (DLS) (now OSEEL) Report of Findings was
provided to JCPS on October 9, 2017. The deficiencies specified in the Report of Findings were
the basis for the district to develop a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). The CAP is the district’s
written improvement plan describing the activities and timelines, with persons responsible for
implementation that will be implemented to remedy the areas of noncompliance under the IDEA.

2
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
The KDE-approved CAP began in October 2017. The CAP has not been completed due to the
complexity of the systemic violations of the IDEA across the district; therefore continued action
steps must occur with support and oversight from the OSEEL.
The OSEEL discovered that while CAP activities are occurring, the district has failed to remedy
its IDEA deficiencies within the required one-year timeline established by the IDEA. Based on
the Evidence Considered, the OSEEL continues to substantiate continued systemic findings of
noncompliance under the IDEA as well as the failure to implement 704 KAR 7:160, The Use of
Physical Restraint and Seclusion in Public Schools for students with disabilities.
Just as the KDE has general supervision responsibility under the IDEA to ensure all school
districts within the state comply with the IDEA, so does JCPS have the responsibility to require
its schools to fulfil the requirements of the IDEA. While there have been organizational changes
within JCPS since OSEEL conducted its initial onsite visit, the governance and organizational
structure continues to impede Exceptional Child Education’s (ECE) ability to provide the
required oversight of the district’s special education program. While many of the deficiencies
included in this report are specific to the IDEA, the JCPS ECE Department must have the
leverage to remedy the IDEA violations. As stated in the previous report, the barriers are
complex and controversial as are the solutions. Changes in JCPS’s organizational structure and
systems to provide the Exceptional Child Education (ECE) department oversight of the district’s
special education program are required.
The KDE has conducted regular onsite meetings with JCPS and has entered into a settlement
agreement with the district as a result of the management audit. The OSEEL meets regularly
with the district to review its progress toward fulfilling the requirements of the IDEA CAP.
OSEEL will continue to provide oversight of the CAP while JCPS works to remedy IDEA
deficiencies and obtain voluntary compliance.
In addition to the onsite meetings aimed at reviewing the progress of the CAP implementation,
the OSEEL identified a point of contact responsible for providing ongoing support and assistance
to the district. This individual maintains an open line of communication with the district’s
Director of Special Education and continually reviews data and sources of evidence the district
provides to document CAP implementation is occurring. Additionally, SmartSheet is used as a
platform where JCPS continually loads documentation of CAP activities and the KDE reviews
the SmartSheet regularly.
The following IDEA CAP activities were conducted between November 2017 and September
2018. The CAP activities began at the central office level in order to build an infrastructure of
change directed toward fulfilling the requirements of the IDEA and promoting positive outcomes
for students with disabilities.

3
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
Issue 1:
Collection and Analysis of Student Discipline Data
 A JCPS district team conducts weekly Data Team meetings to review discipline error
reports from the state information system (known as Infinite Campus) and communicate
to schools when action is required.
 School profile meetings focusing on physical restraint and seclusion occur monthly to
identify specific supports that may be needed at schools.
 A physical restraint and seclusion data analysis protocol was developed to monitor the
reporting of incidents. Data is reviewed by Assistant Superintendents as they monitor
progress at the school level and provide support and accountability.
 The Infinite Campus Behavior Manual was revised to align data entry with state data
standards, with subsequent training of school staff (including a data point of contact at
each school). Both digital and hard copies of the manual were provided to schools.
 A school behavior profile sheet has also been developed as a resource for school and
district leadership in discipline data analysis.
 The Culture and Climate Department has trained schools in documentation of removals.

Issue 2:
Significant Disproportionality / Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening Services
(CCEIS)
 An ECE Coordinator for behavior was identified to provide first response and support for
schools.
 Multi-Tiered Systems of Supports (MTSS) toolkits were developed within the district to
provide behavior supports for schools.
 School administrators received training in documenting removals, manifestation
determination reviews, and the ARC decision-making process.
 Training was also provided in Functional Behavior Assessments and Behavior
Intervention Plans. Behavior Support Placement Specialists were identified to support
ARCs as they consider all relevant information for students and ensure due process
paperwork, as well as IEPs are in compliance and established to target student individual
needs.
 Two MTSS Resource Teachers were identified for each elementary zone, middle schools,
and high schools to provide support for schools in academics and behavior.
Issue 3:
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
 The district is implementing an MTSS Action Plan. This is a comprehensive plan which
utilizes a combination of staffing, programming, hands-on toolkits, and training designed
to proactively address behaviors that negatively impact student learning. Each strategy in
the plan can be modified and tailored to align with the individual school's goal and
overall academic and behavior support needs.

4
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
 Behavior data for all PBIS and Restorative Practice (RP) schools are monitored closely.
The program evaluator has a formal evaluation plan in place and meets with the Behavior
Systems Support Staff at least monthly to share relevant data and craft action steps.
Issue 4:
Continuum of Educational Settings under the IDEA
 The ECE Department developed an Admissions and Release Committee (ARC) Process
Protocol to be completed at all ARC meetings within the district. The protocol includes
consideration of the continuum of educational settings.
 All ARC Chairpersons received training in the protocol in January 2018, with monitoring
and coaching at the school level by ECE department personnel for the remainder of the
school year.
 ARC Chairperson training included consideration of the continuum of educational
settings, with resources shared on the ECE SharePoint Site.
 New ARC Chairpersons received three days of training with a scheduled fourth day of in-
school coaching by ECE Placement Specialists.
 Experienced ARC Chairpersons received two days of training annually.
 Principals, Assistant Principals, and School Counselors received training in the
continuum of educational settings.
 Beginning August 2018, ECE Department administrators conducted random desk audits
of due process folders monthly.
 A system was created to structure coaching and communicate with schools a means for
obtaining support.
 Five, new Emotional-Behavioral Disability (EBD) classrooms were created at the
elementary level, with frequent monitoring of the availability of seats. During this time
period, there were zero EBD classrooms over class size requirements.
 Weekly “Coordination of Student Supports” meetings are held by the ECE Department to
identify and coordinate supports for schools.
Issue 5:
Disciplinary Procedures
 School administrators received training in documenting removals, manifestation
determination reviews, and the ARC decision-making process.
 Training was also provided to school administrators in Functional Behavior Assessments
and Behavior Intervention Plans.
 Behavior Support Placement Specialists were identified to support ARCs as they consider
all relevant information for students and ensure due process paperwork, as well as IEPs
are in compliance and established to target student individual needs.
Issue 6:
Admissions and Release Committee Process
 The activities in Issue 2 are incorporated herein by reference.

5
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
 The ARC Process Protocol is used to guide ARCs in the decision-making process.
Issue 7:
Child Find and Evaluation
 District and school employees received training in January and August, 2018. Training
included an emphasis on Child Find requirements regardless of race or ethnicity.
 An Assessment Alert was created to be used by schools to notify the assessment office
once a parent/guardian has provided consent for an evaluation. This system provides
tracking of students within the assessment department to ensure timelines are met and
evaluations continue for students who transfer schools.
 Training in the referral process was provided for ARC Chairs and school administrators.
 An Assessment Protocol to guide the evaluation process was developed by the ECE
Department to be completed at each ARC meeting involving an evaluation.
 In the 2015-16 school year, 1,007 in-district initial evaluations were conducted by the
assessment department. This number increased to 1,604 in 2017-2018.
 The ECE Department developed a directory (hard copy and electronically) to share clear
lines of support for central office services to schools.
Issue 8:
Supplementary Aids and Supports, Related Services, and Program Modifications /
Supports for Schools
 On-going collaboration with the transportation department is held to ensure special
transportation is available at all schools if students' IEPs require this service.
 Students attending the Kentucky School for the Deaf (KSD) are provided door-to-door
transportation.
 JCPS developed systems for communicating specific needs of students who are
transported by the district or supported by other staff within the school.
 The ECE department provided professional development and technical assistance for
ECE teachers in IEP components including Supplementary Aids and Services and
Program Modifications/Supports for School Personnel.
 An ECE Department school support plan was developed to communicate supports
available for schools after changes in duties of Consulting Teachers.
 Professional development was designed for ARC chairpersons in the provision of related
services including: counseling, mental health services, speech/language services, assistive
technology, and transportation.
 School Counselors received training in Counseling as a Related Service.
 The Communication Specialist and Liaisons collaborated with speech/language therapists
to determine if students were underserved according to their individual needs.
 The ECE Department collaborated with assistive technology staff to determine if students
were underserved and/or had no functional communication system.
 An Assistive Technology Form was created to provide schools a means to request
assistive technology supports.

6
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
 ARC Chairpersons were trained to ensure that the ARC consider extracurricular activities
and the accommodations needed for participation.
Issue 9:
Physical Restraint and Seclusion
 The Safe Crisis Management (SCM) Coordinator works with all schools to maintain
membership on SCM core teams as well as certifications.
 Debriefing protocols have been clarified to hold a debriefing session after every physical
restraint or seclusion regardless of parent participation as soon as practicable, but no later
than five (5) school days following a physical restraint.
 School administrators and SCM team members were trained to maintain all debriefing
documentation. The SCM department conducted random monthly desk audits.
 School Resource Officers have received training to review protocols for their
involvement in SCM.
 In School Security Monitors were SCM Trained prior to the first day of school August
2018.
 Physical Restraint and Seclusion data checks are conducted to examine staff patterns,
student patterns, school patterns and unwarranted physical restraint and seclusion.
While the district is making an effort to complete the CAP, it is important to note that the CAP
has not been completed, some of the action steps noted on the SmartSheet and documented above
have not been deemed sufficient by the OSEEL, and the district remains out of compliance with
the IDEA. Because numerous IDEA violations remain uncorrected, the IDEA CAP must be
continued beyond the one-year time frame established under the IDEA. Subject to oversight from
OSEEL, the district must correct all noncompliance identified by OSEEL pursuant to 707 KAR
1:380, including implementation of the CAP activities to address the root causes of the
noncompliance at the systems level. Because the one-year deadline for an IDEA CAP has been
exceeded by the district, it is imperative the work on this CAP continues at an accelerated pace.
Failure to remedy the violations within the required one-year timeframe could result in OSEEL
imposing additional sanctions for the district.
ISSUES:
KDE-IDENTIFIED ISSUE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT
Issue 1:

Collection and Analysis of Student Discipline Data KRS 158.444

704 KAR 7:160

Issue 2:

Significant Disproportionality / 34 CFR 300.646

Comprehensive Coordinated Early Intervening
Services (CCEIS)

7
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES

KDE-IDENTIFIED ISSUE REGULATORY ALIGNMENT

Issue 3:

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports 707 KAR 1:320, Section 1 (1)
(PBIS)

Issue 4:

Continuum of Educational Settings under the IDEA 707 KAR 1:350, Section 1
(Least Restrictive Environment)

Issue 5:

Disciplinary Procedures 707 KAR 1:340, Section 13 (6)

707 KAR 1:340, Section 14

Issue 6:

Admissions and Release Committee (ARC) Process 707 KAR 1:320, Section 3 (1) (d)

Issue 7:

Child Find and Evaluation 707 KAR 1:300

Issue 8:

Supplementary Aids and Services, Related Services
and Program Modifications / Supports for School
Personnel
707 KAR 1:320 Section 5 (5) (c)
707 KAR 1:002 Section 1 (27)
707 KAR 1:290 Section 1 (1)
707 KAR 1:290 Section 5
707 KAR 1:350 Section 1 (7)

Issue 9:

Physical Restraint and Seclusion 704 KAR 7:160

707 KAR 1:290 Section 1

Issue 10: (NEW)

Individual Education Program (IEP) 707 KAR 1:320 Section 3

707 KAR 1:320 Sections 2, 3 and 5
707 KAR 1:350 Section 1 (5)

Issue 11: (NEW)

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) 707 KAR 1:290, Section 1

8
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
Issue 1:
Collection and Analysis of Student Discipline Data
1. The October 9, 2017 Report of Findings Related to Exceptional Children Services is
incorporated herein by reference.
2. Reporting accurate discipline data is required under Section 618 of the IDEA.
3. As written in the KDE Data Standards, when a student is removed from his or her current
setting due to a disciplinary action, regardless of the amount of time of the removal, this
event must be entered into Kentucky’s Student Information System, known as Infinite
Campus (IC) with the appropriate resolution code documented.
4. The KDE annually analyzes and reports Safe Schools Data that includes disciplinary events
that occurred throughout the year. As part of the analysis, the OSEEL reviews discipline
data for students with disabilities. While JCPS received notification from the KDE of zero
technical errors in their Safe Schools discipline data, further examination of the data
indicated JCPS had content errors in the data. These errors included but were not limited to
the following:
a. duplicated records
b. reports of removals on snow days, weekends, or holidays
c. physical restraints that were recorded to occur for multiple hours or even multiple
days
d. in-school removals which occurred in the same timeframe as out-of-school
removals
5. A review of due process folders from the 2017-18 school year revealed:
a. Multiple records documented the removal of the student on either the Student
Profile Attendance Reports or the Behavior Detail Report in IC; however, the
removals were not consistently recorded as a resolution. Without appropriately
recording the removal as a resolution, it will not be captured in the state’s extract
of discipline data.
b. The same error was found in the documentation of physical restraint data.
Physical restraint was typically recorded in IC but was not always recorded as a
resolution. Without appropriately recording the physical restraint as a resolution,
it will not be captured in the state’s extract of discipline data.
c. When out-of-school removals occurred, students were frequently sent home
immediately following the behavior event. The remaining time of the school day
was coded as an absence. Attendance reports showed the suspension was not
coded appropriately as a suspension until the following school day.
6. Staff in some schools indicated when students are removed from class (e.g. tab out) these
removals were not consistently documented within IC.
7. The Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook includes four levels of
intervention to address student behavior.

9
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
a. Level one includes parent conference, office time-out, cooling off period, peer
mediation, referral to student support staff or detention.
b. Level two includes short-term time in a Positive Action Center (PAC), time-out or
in-school suspension.
c. Level three will involve short-term removal of the student from the school
environment.
d. Level four will involve long-term removal of a student from the school
environment.
8. During interviews, staff at some schools stated level one and two events were not
recorded in IC.
Conclusions:
A. During regular meetings with the KDE, JCPS has demonstrated it continues to devote a
substantial amount of time, effort and resources toward correctly reporting its discipline
data. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples the district’s efforts have not resolved
the issues of duplicate data platforms; omission of data, including physical restraint and
seclusion events that involve students with disabilities; and incorrect or failure to enter
data into IC.
B. As documented in the OSEEL’s previous Report of Findings, JCPS failed to have a clear,
districtwide process and coordinated system to accurately collect and report student-level
data. Throughout the past year, JCPS has demonstrated its commitment to developing
these districtwide, coordinated systems. However, even though the central office staff
have developed systems, accurate collection and reporting of student-level data are not
implemented consistently from the point of initial data entry through the review of data at
the school level.
C. JCPS fails to maintain accurate data in the statewide student information system by
failing to include all discipline events, in violation of KRS 158.444.
D. By failing to report all incidents of physical restraint and seclusion in the student
information system, JCPS continues to be in violation of 704 KAR 7:160.
Issue 2:
Significant Disproportionality under the IDEA
9. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
10. JCPS has historically been required to provide Comprehensive Coordinated Early
Intervening Services (CCEIS) due to significant disproportionality related to disciplinary
removals of African American students with IEPs. See 34 CFR 300.646.
11. The rate of both in-school and out-of-school suspensions for African American students
continues to increase.
12. 2014-2015 School Year District was required to implement CCEIS due to in-school
removals of greater than 10 days of African American students with disabilities at a rate
3.8 times that of non-African American students with disabilities, out-of-school removals
greater than 10 days of African American students with disabilities at a rate 4.2 times the
rate of non-African American students with disabilities, and the placement of white
students with disabilities in residential facilities at a rate 3 times that of non-white

10
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
students with disabilities. This resulted in the district reserving over $3.5 million of it
IDEA funds for this activity. (Discipline data was from the 2012-2013 school year and
placement data was from the 2013-2014 school year.)
13. 2015-2016 School Year District was not found to have significant disproportionality.
However this was largely because of the small numbers of non-African American
students (only two) receiving disciplinary resolutions in sufficient numbers to meet the
minimum cell size requirements. During the 2013-2014 school year African American
special education students were still subject to out-of-school removals for greater than 10
days at a rate 6.4 times that of non-African American special education students that year
were removed. No IDEA funds were required to be reserved to implement CCEIS during
2015-2016.
14. 2016-2017 school year District was not found to have significant disproportionality.
However this was largely because of the small numbers of non-African American
students (only nine subject to in-school removals greater than 10 days and only two
subject to out-of-school removals greater than 10 days) receiving disciplinary resolutions
in sufficient numbers to meet the minimum cell size requirements. During the 2014-2015
school year African American special education students were subject to in-school
removals of greater than 10 days at rate 3.7 times that of non-African American students
and were subject to out-of-school removals for greater than 10 days at a rate 18 times that
of non-African American special education students that year were removed. No IDEA
funds were required to be reserved to implement CCEIS during 2016-2017.
15. 2017-2018 school year JCPS was found to have significant disproportionality during the
2015-2016 school year in its disciplinary resolutions of in-school removals of greater
than 10 days for African American special education students (more than four times the
rate of non-African American special education students) and out-of-school removals of
greater than 10 days for African American special education students (more than 5.2
times the rate of non-African American special education students. This resulted in the
district reserving over $3.5 million of it IDEA funds for this activity.
16. 2018-2019 school year JCPS was found to have significant disproportionality during the
2016-2017 school year in its disciplinary resolutions of in-school removals of greater
than 10 days for African American special education students (more than 4.6 times the
rate of non-African American special education students) and out-of-school removals of
greater than 10 days for African American special education students (more than 6.5
times the rate of non-African American special education students. This resulted in the
district reserving over $3.6 million of it IDEA funds for this activity.
17. During interviews, school staff shared that each school has its own unique plan for
addressing racial equity. Every school is required by the district to address significant
disproportionality in their plans, but consistency is lacking across the district.
Conclusions:
A. Despite the district’s efforts to address significant disproportionality, a review of data
shows an upward trend in both the in-school and out-of-school removals of African
American students.

11
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
B. The district’s failure to accurately report data further exacerbates the disproportionality
since the district fails to report all in-school and out-of-school removals in IC.
C. Due to the continued lack of appropriate oversight of ECE programs, JCPS continues to
be unable to exercise its IDEA responsibilities and still violates 34 CFR 300.646
prohibiting significant disproportionality in the disciplinary removals of African
American students with IEPs.
Issue 3:
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
18. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
19. Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) is the sole approach to addressing
student behavior that is specifically addressed in the IDEA.
20. Congress’s reasons for encouraging the use of PBIS stem from:
a. the historic exclusion of students with disabilities based on unaddressed
behavioral needs; and
b. the strong evidence base supporting the use of PBIS
21. The Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook states the district is committed
to providing a safe, stable, and understanding environment and establishes an expectation
of moving away from using solely punitive practices and toward restorative practices.
22. The Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook states PBIS and Restorative
Practices (RP) are the frameworks being implemented to develop proactive and positive
ways to improve culture, increase engagement, and foster relationships.
23. JCPS is in the process of expanding training and implementation of RP and PBIS to
assist staff members with addressing antecedent behaviors, restoring potentially damaged
relationships, and assisting students in finding replacement behaviors while also taking
accountability for their actions.
24. Interviews revealed principals have received a copy of The Student Support and Behavior
Intervention Handbook and utilize the discipline section.
25. Principals were not able to articulate information from the Student Support and Behavior
Intervention Handbook related to positive, pro-active strategies.
26. However, teachers stated they have not been provided with the Student Support and
Behavior Intervention Handbook and have had no training on the strategies in this
handbook.
27. During interviews, principals confirmed they have not shared the Student Support and
Behavior Intervention Handbook with staff or trained staff on the information.
28. Multiple onsite school visits and interviews with school staff across the district revealed
that PBIS is not being implemented consistently or with fidelity across the district:
a. Staff from most of the visited schools were unable to articulate knowledge and
understanding of PBIS.
b. Interviews with school support staff, including paraprofessionals and security
guards, revealed a lack of knowledge in the implementation of PBIS.
c. Most school staff could not consistently state school-wide expectations.
d. Interviews with school staff revealed a lack of training in PBIS.

12
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
e. Some schools receive support through a PBIS specialist, while many schools go
without this support.
f. Interviews with school-based staff revealed a lack of school-wide approaches to
behavior support.
g. School staff who stated they have been trained in PBIS and other initiatives
acknowledged a lack of implementation within the school once the training is
completed.
29. Multiple onsite school visits and interviews with school staff across the district revealed
that RP is not being implemented consistently or with fidelity across the district:
a. School staff stated they have not been trained in RP, but they are required to begin
implementation activities for RP.
b. During interviews, school staff often confused RP with PBIS.
30. Interviews and due process student record reviews revealed most schools use point sheets
as the only “intervention” strategy to address behavior.
31. Point sheets are sheets provided to each student and include a list of school wide
expectations.
32. Interviews with staff and students revealed rules and expectations are not individualized
to meet the unique needs of individual students.
33. In some schools, all students are expected to meet the same expectations at the same
criterion level regardless of IEP goals.
34. A cross analysis between individual IDEA due process records and schoolwide
expectations revealed school rules and expectations often exceed IEP goals, making the
school rules and expectations out of reach for some students with disabilities. This was
often the case in alternative and behavior support schools.
35. School staff acknowledged the point sheets were not an effective tool for improving
student behavior.
36. School staff from one school include IEP goals on the point sheet for data collection
purposes only. However, reinforcement is only provided to students for meeting school
rules – meeting the IEP goals is not rewarded for students.
37. Rather than providing all staff copies of IEPs or behavior intervention plans, school staff
at some schools explained an IEP “one-pager” was given to support staff to inform them
of the positive behavioral interventions and supports required for individual students.
However, one staff member stated he did not receive the document.
Conclusions:
A. As outlined in the previous OSEEL Report of Findings, JCPS has demonstrated its
willingness to implement innovative strategies designed to address behavior and
discipline needs of students such as PBIS; however, the programs have never been
effectively expanded across the district, due in part to the placement of related programs
in different offices, with no coordination among the offices.
B. Since the initial Report of Findings, JCPS district office staff have demonstrated a
willingness to expand PBIS across the district; however, there is a lack of communication
or expectations occurring at the school level. There is also a lack of attention being paid

13
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
to the unique needs of students with disabilities leaving students without the supports
they are entitled to.
C. By forcing all students to achieve a standard set of schoolwide goals without making the
individual adjustments required by the IDEA for students with IEPs, the district is failing
its most vulnerable students with behavior concerns.
D. By failing to provide special education and related services in conformity with an
appropriate IEP, the district is denying these students a free appropriate public education,
in violation of 707 KAR 1:290 Section (1).
E. Even though some due process folders revealed ARCs initially consider PBIS when
developing IEPs, progress monitoring data, interviews with staff and school visits reveals
a lack of implementation of PBIS in violation of 707 KAR 1:320, Section 1(1).
F. School support staff are not provided access to the IEP and are not informed of specific
responsibilities related to implementing the students’ IEPs. Therefore it is impossible to
implement the IEP in violation of 707 KAR 1:320 Section 1 (6).
Issue 4:
Continuum of Educational Settings under the IDEA
38. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
39. School visits and interviews with staff revealed:
a. School staff lack an understanding of the continuum of settings that should be
available to ECE students.
b. Even though JCPS administrators have provided training for least-restrictive
environment (LRE) requirements, school staff were unable to articulate that the
ARC must determine the LRE for every student with an IEP, regardless of where
that setting may be.
c. School staff described what they referred to as “LRE” as a way to collect data in
order to move students to other schools.
d. ARCs do not have the authority to determine a student’s placement in a full time
special education setting because placement decisions cannot occur without
consultation and approval from placement specialists from the central office.
e. At least one school confirmed it places all ECE students in full time resource
classes and does not consider the continuum of educational settings or LRE for
individual students.
f. Parents are required to contact the Culture/Climate Office when the ARC
recommends an alternative placement.
40. Placement specialists in JCPS are located in two offices: Culture and Climate (also
known as Student Relations) and the ECE Office.
41. When the ARC decides to move a student to a more restrictive setting such as an
alternative school, then approval must be granted by the placement specialists in the
Culture and Climate Office.
42. During the fall of 2018, a review of the JCPS website confirmed placement decisions are
made by placement specialists rather than ARCs.

14
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
43. According to JCPS’s online alternative choice school referral form, the Office of Student
Relations will contact the parent regarding enrollment. The form states, “Please note that
all recommendations will be based upon available enrollments at the school….[School] is
currently only ACCEPTING applications ONLY for 6th, 11th and 12th grade students
for the 2018-2019 school year.” The website further directs questions to the Office of
Student Relations.
44. School staff stated students enter alternative schools for a predetermined amount of time.
Students are required to use a daily point sheet with specific goals that all students must
meet. These point sheets are not aligned with IEP goals and often exceed goals written in
the IEP making the point sheet goals out of reach for students with disabilities. Only
when students meet all the goals from the point sheet can he or she transition back to the
comprehensive school setting.
45. ARCs at alternative schools are not held before the end of the semester; therefore, when a
student achieves the goals he or she must remain at the alternative school until the district
schedules the ARC meeting. This results in students being placed unnecessarily in a more
restrictive location for an extended amount of time.
Conclusions:
A. ARCs have the legal responsibility to determine appropriate settings for students.
B. Instead, placements of EBD students needing restrictive settings continue to be
improperly taken out of the hands of ARCs and made by central office staff or are not
made at all.
C. Students with disabilities are not receiving individualized supports to enable them to meet
the school wide expectations, rather the expectations are set in excess of IEP goals. In
essence, this structure prevents students from being successful based on the student’s
disability.
D. As a result, students are continuing to be unnecessarily removed from their least
restrictive environment (LRE).
E. The district continues to fail to provide a continuum of educational settings for students,
especially those with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities (EBD), in violation of 707
KAR 1:350, Section 1.
Issue 5:
Disciplinary Procedures
46. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
47. The Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook outlines disciplinary
procedures for students with disabilities.
48. Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook includes the following statements:
a. School officials may suspend students with disabilities and cease educational
services for a total of up to ten consecutive or ten cumulative school days in one
school year without providing special education services.
b. In order to determine whether the circumstances permit a suspension in excess of
ten days per school year, consultation with a Student Relations ECE coordinator
is required. Without such consultation and approval from the Student Relations

15
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
ECE coordinator, the cumulative ten-school-day limit on school suspensions will
apply.
c. For ECE students with serious behavior violations, the school administrator may
refer the student to the Student Relations ECE coordinator of behavior.
49. JCPS Exceptional Child Education Procedures in effect during the 2017-18 school year
state, “An ARC is required for all suspensions of more than five (5) cumulative days in a
given school year. The ARC is convened within ten (10) school days of the date on
which the decision is made regarding the contemplated suspension.”
50. School administrators at several schools explained they try to limit suspensions for
students with disabilities to avoid triggering the need for a manifestation determination.
51. Interviews revealed administrators would like more training around student behavior,
discipline and manifestation determinations.
52. The OSEEL review of due process student records revealed:
a. Manifestation determination meetings were not being held within the appropriate
timelines set out in the JCPS Exceptional Child Education Procedures and the
Kentucky Administrative Regulations.
b. These meetings frequently occurred weeks and sometimes months after a
behavior event.
53. When an ARC determines the student’s conduct that resulted in a change in placement is
a manifestation of the student’s disability, the IDEA requires a Functional Behavior
Assessment (FBA), with parental consent, be conducted if the student does not have a
Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP).
54. If the student has an existing FBA and BIP, this regulation requires the ARC to review
the BIP and modify it as necessary to address the behavior.
55. The OSEEL review of student due process records revealed instances in which FBAs and
BIPs were incomplete, failed to address the student’s behavior of concern, or were
missing entirely from the due process files.
56. When students are suspended in excess of 10 days, special education services must still
be provided. The OSEEL review of student due process records revealed:
a. Compensatory education services were often provided during the student’s
regular school day. As a result, the student missed class to receive compensatory
services.
b. Compensatory education was rejected by parents due to concerns of their children
missing class.
c. When a parent did not attend the ARC meeting in which compensatory education
services were discussed, the ARC did not discuss the need for compensatory
education and stated that compensatory education was not offered because the
parent could not be reached.

16
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
Conclusions:
A. While including special education policy, practices, and procedures in the Student
Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook can be beneficial and ensure consistent
application, the contents of the Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook
contribute to, and at times even result in, ongoing systemic violations of the IDEA.
B. The Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook requires Student Relations
ECE Coordinators to determine if there is a need for an ARC meeting to discuss
placement options.
C. The Student Support and Behavior Intervention Handbook confirms district policy is
aimed at removing the decision making power from ARCs and placing it in the hands of
the Student Relations office in violation of 707 KAR 1:350, Section 1 (5).
D. School staff’s understanding of manifestation determinations continue to be inconsistent
with federal, state and local requirements.
E. Manifestation determination meetings frequently are not held before out-of-school
suspensions that result in a change in placement but occur long after the student has
already completed the out-of-school suspension days.
F. The lack of immediate parent availability does not relieve the district of its responsibility
to provide compensatory services when needed.
G. JCPS continues to be in violation of 707 KAR 1:340, Section 14 as well as its own
procedures for discipline of ECE students.
H. The failure of JCPS to implement appropriate disciplinary procedures for its most
vulnerable students results in a systemic denial of FAPE, in violation of 707 KAR 1:290,
Section 1 (1).
Issue 6:
ARC Process
57. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
58. The role of the district’s 44 consulting teachers was changed prior to the start of the
2018-19 school year.
59. Consulting teachers are now assigned to specific schools and have the responsibility of
chairing ARC meetings within their schools.
60. Consulting teachers have the responsibility to chair ARC meetings including those for
initial referrals, annual reviews, and district desk-audit corrections. They do not chair
ARC meetings when a more restrictive change of placement is being considered.
61. Consulting teachers received three days of ARC chairperson training.
62. While district staff stated the intent of this change was to free up time for school
counselors by having consulting teachers act as ARC chairpersons, the consulting
teachers do not have the authority to allocate district resources.
63. Consulting teachers acting as ARC chairpersons are forbidden to discuss more restrictive
educational settings for students with EBD.

17
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
Conclusions:
A. JCPS continues to unilaterally make decisions outside of the ARC process.
B. Kentucky’s regulations require a member of the ARC to be a representative of the school
district who is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of specially designed
instruction and be knowledgeable about the availability of district resources.
C. The consulting teachers are acting as ARC chairpersons; yet, they do not have the
authority to supervise the providing of specially-designed instruction or allocate district
resources, in violation of 707 KAR 1:320, Section 3 (d).
Issue 7:
Child Find under the IDEA
64. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
65. Interviews with school staff and school visits revealed:
a. Teachers have a lack of understanding about the referral process.
b. The school counselor is the “gate keeper” for referral. The counselor determines
when a student is ready for a referral.
c. Staff shared concerns about the length of time it takes to identify students. An
example of this included one staff member who stated 12 weeks of data is
preferred.
d. Several staff members stated the referral process is a very lengthy process due to
delaying the referral.
e. If a parent requests a referral, staff stated six weeks of data must be collected
before the referral can be accepted by the ARC.
f. One staff member said, “There is no urgency here at this school. I kind of got
hushed when I brought up that a student needed an IEP and this was first grade;
he’s now in fifth grade.”
g. Staff stated the student must have a medical diagnosis documented in order to be
considered under the eligibility category of Other Health Impairment (OHI).
66. The JCPS Exceptional Child Education Procedures on page nine of Chapter Four states,
regarding eligibility for Emotional Behavioral Disability (EBD), “Data should indicate
that systematic behavioral interventions were implemented with the child or youth over
an extended time; four (4) school months is recommended with the exception of
behaviors that are dangerous to one’s self or others.”
Conclusions:
A. The United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) issued a Memorandum (OSEP 11-07) stating a Response to Intervention (RtI)
process cannot be used to delay or deny an evaluation for eligibility under the IDEA.
B. 707 KAR 1:300, Section 3 (1) requires the district to have a referral system that explains
how referrals from district or non-district sources will be accepted and acted upon in a
timely manner. It is inappropriate for any one individual to determine when a student
should be referred for special education, as is the case when school counselors are the

18
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
“gate keeper” of referrals and act as the sole person in the school building who can
determine when a child is ready for a referral.
C. By requiring a medical diagnosis from a physician before considering eligibility for OHI,
the district is delaying and denying evaluations.
D. The district fails to act upon IDEA referrals (Child Find) in a timely manner, in violation
of 707 KAR 1:300.
Issue 8:
Supplementary Aids and Services, Related Services and Program Modifications/Supports
for School Personnel
67. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
68. Interviews with school staff and school visits revealed:
a. The school counselor in schools that no longer have a consulting teacher is now
spending much more time chairing ARCs and consulting with teachers regarding
referrals and interventions.
b. In schools without a consulting teacher, school counselors do not have as much
time during the day to provide counseling services/guidance to students when
required to chair ARC meetings and consult with teachers regarding all ECE
referrals as well as interventions in place for students.
c. One staff member stated there are too many coaches in schools and not enough
teachers. Teachers often move into coaching roles and leave a void at the
classroom level. Special Education classrooms are being staffed with substitutes
because there are not enough certified teachers to accept the teaching positions.
d. A classified staff member was observed at one school overseeing an in-school
suspension room. When asked about who provided instruction for students with
disabilities when they were in the classroom, they justified supervising the in-
school suspension classroom, because it was located next to a certified special
education teacher’s classroom. They further stated they leave the door open and
call over the teacher from the neighboring classroom when a student has a
question. The classified staff member is the primary staff member responsible for
the students throughout the day.
e. Staff in one school stated beginning this school year, they are now given the
authority by the district to list mental health supports as a related service. This
was not an option to include on the IEP in the past.
f. However, multiple staff interviewed did not know mental health services could be
written in the IEP as a related service.
g. Mental health supports were not in place or not an option as a related service for
students in most of the visited schools.
h. Staff stated trauma and mental health are not being addressed in student’s IEPs.
i. Staff members stated a need for more support services for students.
i. One staff member said, “We need more wrap-around services for kids.”

19
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
ii. Another staff member stated, “We don’t have enough mental health
supports.”
69. A review of student due process records revealed:
a. Student IEPs included extensive behavior intervention plans that would require
training for school personnel in order to appropriately implement the plans.
b. However, many IEPs failed to include program modifications and supports
needed for school personnel.
Conclusions:
A. The district’s decision to utilize consulting teachers as ARC chairpersons, has had the
unintended consequence of school counselors being unable to provide needed counseling
services for students in schools that lost consulting teachers. Therefore, the school
counselors’ responsibilities have increased in duties such as chairing ARC meetings,
assisting teachers with the referral process and offering guidance and support to staff
related to questions concerning students with disabilities.
B. The district fails to include mental health services on student’s IEPs when appropriate.
This is evidenced in multiple interviews with teachers stating the need for mental health
supports for students; however, stating they had no idea mental health supports could be
included in the student’s IEP.
C. The district’s continued failure to provide adequate numbers of related service providers
violates 707 KAR 1:002 Section 1(27) and 707 KAR 1:290 Section 1(1).
Issue 9:
Physical Restraint and Seclusion
70. All the above Findings are incorporated by reference.
71. During the visit, physical restraint was only reviewed for students with disabilities.
72. The OSEEL review of student records revealed the lack of behavioral interventions
utilized immediately prior to implementing physical restraint or seclusion.
73. Physical restraint was used improperly as a precaution when staff were concerned a
student might react aggressively toward them. The following examples of the improper
use of physical restraint are documented in IDEA due process folders:
a. A student had three separate incidents of physical restraint involving being
handcuffed by an officer, but no arrests were made. The handcuffs were used “for
her safety and that of others,” not law enforcement duties. In all incidents, the
officer made the determination to place the handcuffs on the student but did not
arrest the student.
b. A student was physically restrained for threatening a security guard with his fist.
No physical contact was made. . Documentation states the staff "grabbed his
shirt" before placing him in an upper torso physical restraint.
c. A student was physically restrained when the student “lunged towards items in the
(Assistant Principal) AP office.”

20
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
74. Student records revealed a lack of debriefing sessions or an ARC meeting after a physical
restraint occurred. Behavioral detail reports do not consistently document that parents
were offered a debriefing session.
75. Excessive numbers of physical restraints were used with students with little or no regard
to changes that should be made to the student’s IEP to address the behavior issues of the
student.
a. A student was physically restrained more than 20 times during the 2017-18 school
year. The student had 319 behavior events in which 245 of them were for
fighting/striking. However, the IEP only addressed on task behavior.
b. A student was physically restrained eight times during the 2017-18 school year.
The ARC had multiple manifestation determination meetings but never
considered changes needed to the BIP.
c. A student was physically restrained 22 times during the 2017-18 school year.
Several of the behavior events that led to restraint occurred during the same time
period of the day. The ARC did not address patterns in behavior or try to
determine triggers that led to the behavior occurring at the same time of day.
Conclusions:
A. Physical restraint was used excessively with some students without an ARC meeting to
discuss changes that could be made to the student’s IEP to address behavior issues prior
to implementing physical restraint.
B. The use of physical restraint and seclusion during instances where there is not imminent
danger of harm, is a violation of 704 KAR 7:160.
C. As a result of the above findings, JCPS is in violation of 704 KAR 7:160.
D. Inappropriate use of physical restraint and seclusion such as failing to convene an ARC
meeting to discuss strategies to modify the student’s behavior; repeatedly and
unnecessarily removing the student from the regular setting; and failing to address the
effect of the student’s disability has on his or her behavior results in a denial of FAPE, in
violation of 707 KAR 1:002, Section 1 (27).
Issue 10:
Individual Education Program (IEP)
76. Review of student due process records revealed:
a. Two students were identified as having primary and secondary disabilities even
though state regulations do not recognize secondary disability categories.
b. Multiple decisions about placement for students were made outside of the ARC.
Behavior detail records stated parents were to contact the Office of Student
Relations to discuss placement after a behavior event. Also, behavior detail
records stated students were recommended for alternative school placement
following a behavior event.
c. There was little to no evidence of the collection of progress monitoring data of
annual goals.

21
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
d. Even though many IEPs included needed supports for students, few of them
included program modifications and supports needed for school personnel to
ensure staff knew how to appropriately provide these supports to their students.
e. Required components in the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and
Functional Performance (hereafter referred to as present levels), including
strengths of the student and recent assessment data were missing.
f. Statements of how the student’s disability affects the student’s involvement and
progress in the general curriculum were missing.
g. Information in the consideration of special factors concerning behavior was
inconsistent with other information within the students’ records. For example, the
special factors stated behavior is not impacting learning of the student or others;
however, the IEP included a behavior goal.
h. The review of student due process records from the same school revealed all
students were receiving the exact same special education minutes.
i. When ARCs determine a student requires special transportation as a related
service, the service is included on the student’s IEP but is documented as zero
service minutes per day.
j. Annual goals were not measurable.
k. Program modifications and supports for school personnel were not addressed.
l. Some IEPs did not contain an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child
will not participate with nondisabled children in regular classes.
Conclusions:
A. The review of student IEPs revealed numerous student specific violations concerning IEP
development and implementation.
B. The district remains in violation of:
 707 KAR 1:320 Sections 2 and 5
 707 KAR 1:350 Section 1 (5)
Issue 11:
Free Appropriate Public Education
77. All of the above findings are incorporated herein by reference.
78. Interviews with students at an alternative school in the district revealed students were
denied entry to the school building if they rode public transportation and were late to
school. Tardy students could only gain entry if their parents came to school and signed
them in at the front office; otherwise, the student was turned away from the school and
the doors remained locked.
79. The findings within this report confirm systemic violations have been substantiated
within the district, including:
a. Failure to collect and analyze student discipline data
b. Failure to provide a continuum of educational settings under the IDEA that allows
each student with an IEP to be placed in his or her least restrictive environment

22
 REPORT OF FINDINGS
RELATED TO EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN SERVICES
c. Failure to comply with IDEA disciplinary procedures
d. Unilateral decisions made outside of the ARC meeting
e. Inappropriate physical restraint and seclusion that resulted in students being
denied access to the general curriculum
Conclusions:
A. JCPS has an obligation to provide a free, appropriate public education to all its IDEA-
eligible students.
B. When students are denied access to the school due to a policy prohibiting tardy students
from entering the building without a parent, the students are being denied a Free
Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in violation of 707 KAR 1:290, Section 1.
C. The findings in this report confirm JCPS has failed to consistently provide FAPE for
students with disabilities.
D. It is concluded the district is in violation of 707 KAR 1:290, Section 1. When students
with IEPs are not provided FAPE, they are entitled to compensatory education to replace
the services the district was obligated to provide.

23