Photo by DCPS.

Most public school operators in DC fail to meet the requirements of federal special education law, according to information recently released by DC officials. We’ve got a list of schools and their ratings.

Every year, the federal government requires all states and the District of Columbia to assess how well public schools are implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which specifies the services special-needs students are entitled to. Recently, in response to my Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, the DC agency that oversees IDEA released those ratings for the first time.

The ratings, or “determinations,” that were released are based on data for the 2010-11 school year, along with cover letters to each school dated last year. The documents show that DCPS, which for this purpose includes a number of DC charter schools, narrowly missed a determination that would have required the DC agency to withhold funds or take legal action.

The federal Department of Education [DOE] has designated the District “high risk” in its compliance with IDEA for 7 straight years, longer than any state. There are approximately 12,000 children in DC public schools who require special education services, according to the DOE. About 7,400 of them are in DCPS, with the rest in charter schools.

The DC agency charged with IDEA oversight, the Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), makes determinations of school operators, known as Local Education Agencies (LEAs), not of individual schools. An LEA is any entity that operates one or more public schools. You can find a list of all the LEA’s and their percentage scores at the end of this post.

Some LEAs, like DCPS, operate many schools, while others, like Yu Ying, operate only one school. Charters have the option of choosing DCPS for their LEA. Few have done so, although one that has, KIPP DC, serves over 3,500 students at 12 campuses. The primary consequence of the decision is that DCPS is ultimately accountable for their special education compliance and disburses their federal special education funding.

OSSE assigns each LEA one of four determinations. In the documents OSSE released, no LEA received the lowest determination, “Needs Substantial Intervention.” But DCPS received the second-lowest determination, “Needs Intervention.” And its rating of 42%, the lowest of any LEA, is only 2 percentage points away from the lowest determination, which would have required OSSE to recover or withhold federal special education funding or refer DCPS for legal enforcement action.

DCPS’ rating is based on non-compliance with various indicators. For example, OSSE gave DCPS zero out of a possible 2 points after finding that less than 75% of student files were in compliance with accommodations required by IDEA, based on a random sample of files.

OSSE also found that DCPS had a “disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.”

Because the findings don’t distinguish between the different schools included in the DCPS LEA, it’s hard to know how they reflect on the charter schools that are part of it.

In addition to DCPS, two other LEAs received the “Needs Intervention” rating, Perry Street Prep and Community Academy. OSSE may also withhold federal funding for LEAs that receive this determination for 3 consecutive years.

The Public Charter School Board (PCSB) voted last month to close the Perry Street high school, though not the middle and elementary schools, citing a “disturbingly high number of findings” of noncompliance with IDEA. The PCSB voted to make Community Academy a candidate for closure in late 2011, but then chose to keep it open in 2012.

For each LEA, OSSE issues a three-part report including data that parents of special education students will likely be interested to read before selecting a school. Below is the list of LEAs that were evaluated, along with their determinations and percentage scores. For the full reports, click here and navigate to a particular LEA.

The folder for each LEA contains three documents: a cover letter; “Enclosure 1” which defines the indicators that OSSE measured; and “Enclosure 2,” which rates the LEA against each indicator. The total percentage for each LEA is the sum of points it received based on its level of compliance with each indicator. The cover letters set out steps that each LEA needs to take to address deficiencies.

Meets Requirements

  • Yu Ying - 100%
  • Mundo Verde - 100%
  • Two Rivers - 95%
  • LAMB - 94%
  • Achievement Prep - 94%
  • Briya - 90%
  • Washington Latin - 89%
  • Bridges - 89%
  • Shining Stars Montessori - 87%
  • Mary McLeod - 85%
  • Elsie Whitlow Stokes - 84%
  • National Collegiate Prep - 83%
  • Potomac Lighthouse - 82%

Needs Assistance

  • Inspired Teaching - 80%
  • Seed - 78%
  • DC Prep - 77%
  • Friendship - 76%
  • Options - 74%
  • Maya Angelou -74%
  • Capital City - 74%
  • Howard University Middle - 73%
  • Eagle Academy - 73%
  • Apple Tree Early Learning - 71%
  • DC Bilingual - 71%
  • Imagine Hope Community - 71%
  • Excel Academy - 71%
  • Integrated Design Electronics Academy - 68%
  • Meridian - 67%
  • Arts & Technology - 65%
  • Cedar Tree - 64%
  • Imagine Southeast - 63%
  • Washington Math Science & Technology - 61%
  • Tree of Life - 61%

Needs Intervention

  • Perry Street Prep - 53%
  • Community Academy - 52%
  • DC Public Schools - 42%

Ken Archer is CTO of a software firm in Tysons Corner. He commutes to Tysons by bus from his home in Georgetown, where he lives with his wife and son.  Ken completed a Masters degree in Philosophy from The Catholic University of America.