News

For the fifth year in a row, the College Board named Lake Washington School District (LWSD) to its Annual AP District Honor Roll. LWSD is one of only 373 public school districts in the United States and Canada and one of four in Washington state to be honored. Lake Washington is one of two districts in the state to be a multi-year recipient of the AP Honor Roll Award.

At its December 3 meeting, Lake Washington School District’s (LWSD) Board of Directors passed Resolution No. 2259 to place a Capital Projects Levy on the April 23, 2019 ballot. This measure, if passed, authorizes a six-year levy totaling $120 million or an average of $20 million per year for six years. 

Events

Twitter

    OSPI’s Washington Integrated System of Monitoring Onsite Visit Summary Report

    The of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) conducts annual reviews of selected school districts in the state using Washington’s Integrated System of Monitoring (WISM). This year, we were selected for monitoring, which included an onsite review by OSPI monitors. This onsite portion of the monitoring process was conducted on March 28th and March 29th. The onsite visit included meetings with members of our Central Leadership Team, focus groups that included district parents and staff, classroom observations, and interviews of teachers and special education specialists.

    Last week, we received the WISM final report. As we shared with you from OSPI’s summary report there were no major areas of concern and this is also consistent with the final report. Summaries of each of the report elements are below.

    Critical Element I–Data Management:  

    • Areas of strength highlights:
      • The Program Review team confirmed the district has the following data management components in place: (a) Data Collection, (b) Data Compilation and Reporting, (c) Data Verification and Improvement, and (d) Data Decision Making.
      • The district has demonstrated the ability to ensure timely correction of any identified non-compliance over the three-year time period reviewed.[1]
      • Bell schedules matched the total instructional minutes for all ten schools submitted in the 2017-18 LRE Calculator (iGrants Form Package 267)
    • Required Actions: None
    • Recommendations for Program Improvement: None

    Critical Element II: Fiscal Accountability:

    • Areas of strength highlights:
      • The district met IDEA eligibility and compliance using the new LEA MOE Calculator.[2]
      • Based on a review of the district’s description of its monthly special education enrollment reporting (P-223H) and student exception processes, including the October 2017 Exceptions report, the district has a system in place for ensuring accurate monthly enrollment reporting.  
      • The district provided descriptions of its contract procurement (Object 700), time and effort, and inventory practices. The district’s description of its contract procurement processes includes protocols for obtaining contract approval with delineated deliverables and activities/strategies to monitor receipt of goods/services prior to payment
    • Required Actions: None
    • Recommendations for Program Improvement: None

    Critical Element III–Dispute Resolution:  

    • Areas of strength highlights:
      • The district had eight due process hearing requests between July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2017 and two hearing requests between July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. Of the ten total requests, seven were filed by parents and three were filed by the district. Resolution sessions were timely conducted in five of the parent requests and waived in two requests in lieu of mediation. Of the ten requests for a due process hearing, one was resolved between the district and parents (in 2017), three resulted in resolution agreements (two in 2016 and one in 2017), two were resolved through formal mediation agreements (one in 2016 and one in 2017), two were withdrawn (one in 2016 and one in 2017); and two proceeded to hearing (both had findings in favor of the district in 2016).
      • There were 11 requests for mediation; five requests were made by the district and six were made by parents. Six requests resulted in mediation agreements, three requests were declined, and two requests could not be scheduled.
      • During the on-site visit, the district provided written interoffice protocols regarding the communication, tracking, documentation, and analysis used by the district to timely implement corrective actions resulting from IDEA dispute resolution decisions and/or agreements, including the development of a systematic process to prevent recurrence.
    • Required Actions: None
    • Recommendations for Program Improvement: None

    Critical Element IV: Monitoring Priority Areas:
    Least Restrictive Environment

    • Areas of strength highlights:
      • The district met the state targets for Indicator B-5A (percent of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 who spend 80-100% of the day in the regular class) and Indicator B-5B (percent of students with IEPs aged 6 through 21 who spend less than 40% of the day in the regular class) for the three-year period reviewed.
      • The district submitted a description of the continuum of placement options offered for preschool students with disabilities, including services provided within Head Start and Ready Start programs, self-contained preschool programs, and supplemental programs for preschool students with Autism. The district also plans to pilot four integrated early childhood classrooms during the 2018-19 school year.
    • Required Actions: None
    • Recommendations for Program Improvement:
      • During the on-site visit, the district reported that IEP teams may not have fully implemented the practice of accounting for the child’s participation in regular early childhood programs within the community. It is recommended that the district work with OSPI for technical assistance related to the implementation of this practice.  
      • The district is encouraged to continue to pursue options for preschool children with disabilities to receive services in settings alongside nondisabled peers. The district is encouraged to review OSPI’s website for technical assistance resources related to Indicator B-6 Preschool LRE.

    Secondary Transition:

    • Areas of strength highlights:
      • According to the district’s Performance Data Profile, the district’s data for Indicator B-1 (Graduation Rates) were above the state average for the three-year period reviewed. In addition, the district met the state targets for Indicator B-2 (Dropout Rates) and Indicator B-14 (Post-school Outcomes) for the same period.
      • The record review included 27 files that contained secondary transition for students turning age 16 or beyond (or younger if the IEP team determined it was appropriate). Twenty-five of the 27 files reviewed for secondary transition (93%) contained all of the required transition components, including age-appropriate transition assessment information, measurable post-secondary goals, transition services including course(s) of study, and evidence the student was invited to participate in the transition IEP meeting. This represents improvement from the district’s 2015–16 WISM review, which showed 76% compliance in this area.
    • Required Actions:
      • Two of the 27 files reviewed for secondary transition were missing one or more of the required transition elements. Correction of the student-specific non-compliance described on the IEP Review Forms for the identified files must be completed as soon as possible, but no later than the due date of the correction cycle (March 1, 2019).
    • Recommendations for Program Improvement:
      • The district is encouraged to move forward with its plans to expand service options for students with disabilities aged 18 through 21.

    Disproportionality:

    • Reviewer’s Notes:
      • Based on an analysis of the district’s pre-visit documentation and other data, disproportionality was not selected as a monitoring priority area of focus. It was noted, based on preliminary data reviews, that Lake Washington School District could potentially be identified for significant disproportionality in the area of students identified as Hispanic who are eligible under the disability category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD) when the new significant disproportionality calculations go into effect in the 2019–20 school year.[3]

    Critical Element V – Individualized Education Program

    • Areas of strength highlights:
      • All of the IEPs reviewed identified services that were consistent with the recommendations identified in the evaluation report.
      • All of the students reviewed were found to be receiving specially designed instruction and related services in the areas identified in the IEP.
      • In all of the IEPs reviewed, the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance contained information to support the student’s current level of functioning.
      • All of the IEPs reviewed were completed within the required timelines (i.e., 30 calendar days from initial eligibility and annual IEP within one year of the prior IEP).
      • The district has demonstrated substantial compliance on Indicator B-11 (Timely Initial Evaluations) by being at 100% for the past three years for this indicator.
    • Required Actions:
      • Correction of the student-specific non-compliance identified must be completed as soon as possible, but no later than the due date of the correction cycle (March 1, 2019).
    • Recommendations for Program Improvement:
      • Approximately 15 of the files reviewed contained one or more revisions to the current evaluation report that were completed using a process that appeared unclear and confusing to the reviewers. The district is encouraged to consider using the Assessment Revision forms and process that are part of the district’s IEP system (IEP.Online) in order to be more transparent when changes are being made to a student’s current evaluation.
      • Twelve of the 27 student progress reports reviewed did not include actual information/data as stated in the goal about the student's progress toward the annual goals. The district is encouraged to review and disseminate the progress reporting tip from the April 2017 Special Education Monthly Update (beginning on page 2 of the following link: http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/monthlyupdates/April2017Updates.pdf).   

    Overall, there were no major areas of concern noted in the final report. Areas that were noted, including adjustments to our preschool LRE reporting process; providing a written description to department staff of our procedures to implement dispute resolution findings; sharing post-school outcome data with building staff; use of the IEP Assessment Revision form; and providing clarification on how paraeducators were assigned, will help us to improve special education services.

    Again, during the visit debrief and summary report, OSPI indicated that we had excellent data management and fiscal controls. They also highlighted the district’s efforts on the MTSS framework for evidenced-based interventions; a formalized pre-referral process; and developing student/teacher problem-solving team processes. Other highlights included the expansion of our 18-21 services and the data collection tools and strategies used at the transition academy to collect student data in the community setting.

    Please note: WISM Parent Survey Update:
    OSPI is still working with the survey contractor to complete some extra security assessment measures related to the parent survey contract and data sharing. OSPI is still planning on sending out email notification to our district regarding the launch date and timeline for the survey once they are known. OSPI is predicting that the survey will go out during the summer, they are planning on allowing for an extended response timeline. OSPI is hoping to have parent survey results back to districts in September.

    [1] The district completed correction summaries (iGrants Form Package 442) for student specific issues (2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17). The district was not required to complete a correction summary in 2017-18.
    2 The LEA MOE Calculator is located at http://www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/Finance-Grants/Funding.aspx.
    3 As communicated in OSPI’s Special Education Bulletin 030-18 (http://www.k12.wa.us/BulletinsMemos/Bulletins2018/B030-18.pdf), Washington State is moving to a new calculation for the identification of significant disproportionality. As noted in the bulletin, if the U.S. Department of Education determines that it will not delay the implementation of the new significant disproportionality regulations, then the new calculations will be in effect for the 2018-19 school year.