A recent history of violations by the Springfield School District has prompted the Vermont Agency of Education to establish a plan for “targeted monitoring” that will include on-site visits to all of Springfield’s schools, beginning in May.

The violations were outlined in a recent 11-page letter from Chris Case, the agency’s director of student support services.

Springfield, Vt., is also being investigated by the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, school board member Mary Krueger told VTDigger on Monday. It marks at least the second time in three years that Springfield’s school district has been the subject of a federal inquiry.

Targeted monitoring is the “highest degree of escalated monitoring,” according to the state agency’s protocols. The status is triggered when a district is found to be noncompliant during regular, periodical monitoring of all school districts, and during follow-up “selective” monitoring.

Case wrote that the agency hopes the site visits provide “an opportunity to identify the root causes behind the ongoing non-compliance and related concerns.” Those visits may include interviews, surveys and other forms of data collection.

According to Case’s letter, which was written in December and revised in January, the decision to begin targeted monitoring was triggered because the district’s students “are not receiving post-secondary transition plans that meet the required criteria.”

“Initial Evaluations to determine special education eligibility have not been performed within the timelines specified in the State of Vermont’s Special Education Rules,” Case wrote. “Documentation provided by the Springfield SD and other information received by the (state) raises concern that students with disabilities may not be receiving a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) through universal instruction with appropriate services and support.”

As required, the district posted the state’s letter to its website.

In an email, Sherri Nichols, Springfield’s school superintendent, said the two indicaors in which the district was noncompliant required “100% accuracy,” making anything less noncompliant.

“As the district has noted during this school year, the shortage of appropriate staff to provide services and support the district’s students has continued,” Nichols wrote. “This shortage has impacted on the district’s ability to have 100% compliance with the AOE monitoring.

“We will continue to strive to meet all our diverse learners’ needs,” Nichols wrote. “The Springfield School District is taking this designation seriously. More specifically, this designation provides the district with the opportunity to improve systems and delivery models to support all of our diverse learners.”

The Springfield School Board first discussed the targeted monitoring at a Feb. 6 selectboard meeting, the Springfield Reporter first reported. A slideshow at that meeting, addressing the district’s special education, read: “Our district, along with many other districts across the state, has been placed in targeted monitoring.”

But reporting from Seven Days appears to contradict the district’s characterization. While other districts are also under targeted monitoring, Springfield is the “only one that is scheduled for a site visit due to the number and nature of compliance issues,” the newspaper reported, citing Chris Kane, the Agency of Education’s interim director of special education.

Regarding the federal inquiry, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has “requested information, as part of that investigation. That’s the phase that it’s in right now,” Krueger, the school board member, said. She was informed of the investigation last week but declined to discuss the allegations in the federal complaint.

In an email on Monday, Nichols acknowledged only that a parent had filed a complaint to the Office for Civil Rights. She did not respond to questions about the nature of the complaint or the related investigation.

In 2020, the Springfield School District reached a resolution agreement after the Office for Civil Rights began an investigation into allegations that the district had failed to provide a free and appropriate education to a student.

The details of that investigation were heavily redacted, though the district agreed to provide staff with further training in special education and to evaluate the services it was providing the student at the center of the inquiry. As part of the resolution agreement, the Springfield district admitted no wrongdoing.

Last summer, VTDigger spoke to several Springfield families who said their children had failed to receive adequate special education in the district, or, in some instances, any special education at all. The state affirmed one of those family’s complaints, ordering the district to move back into compliance.

One of those parents, Jenn Flores, said her 18-year-old son, Ryleigh, who has autism, is still not receiving any services from the district.

“Ryleigh has sat home for a year and three months with absolutely nothing,” Flores said on Monday. The school district and Flores herself have tried to find a placement for Ryleigh at a different, more specialized school, but those schools are short-staffed, not taking kids or taking only higher-functioning students, Flores said.

In the January letter from the agency, Case highlighted that Springfield “has not yet complied with corrective actions resulting from an administrative complaint ... resulting in a student continuing to remain out of school and not receiving (an individualized education program).” It was not clear whether the administrative complaint mentioned is the same one shared with VTDigger last summer.

According to Case’s letter, Springfield has not complied with the state agency’s rules for three consecutive years.

State officials detailed multiple occurrences of poor communication or seeming ill-preparedness by Springfield School District leadership, particularly the district’s director of special services, Kelly Ryan.

“Springfield SD Director of Special Education emailed the AOE to ask what could be characterized as introductory questions regarding how to complete the action items detailed in the June 15, 2022 monitoring report,” Case wrote. “This occurred 15 calendar days prior to the submission deadline, after Springfield SD received notification of continued noncompliance for the third consecutive year.”

“Kelly Ryan was contacted on October 27, 2022 to set a meeting day and time to discuss the (Accountability and Continuous Improvement System) report and progress; as of November 9, 2022, a response had not been received.”

Continued noncompliance can lead to increased reporting requirements and withholding payments, Case said in the letter.

]]>