LA JOYA ISD presents special-education audit showing low outcomes; superintendent proposes constraints and progress measures

LA JOYA ISD officials presented findings from a third‑party special‑education audit and outlined district recommendations and proposed superintendent constraints aimed at improving outcomes for students with disabilities.

The audit, conducted with Bellwether Education Partners and presented by Dr. Derek Little, the district—s chief of academics and school leadership, found that less than a quarter of students receiving special education services met grade‑level standards and that "fewer than 5 percent of our special ed students actually have graduated college ready historically in La Jolla ISD," Little said. He said the district has about 14% of students identified for special education compared with an expected range of roughly 10%–12% for comparable systems.

The audit examined student outcomes, classroom instruction, family engagement, leadership and talent, and operations and infrastructure. It recommended a systemwide emphasis on multi‑tiered systems of support (MTSS) to reduce premature referrals, higher‑quality individualized education programs (IEPs), improved co‑teaching and inclusive practices, better data integration, and a multi‑year financial forecast for special education.

Why it matters: district leaders said the audit bears directly on the district—s Lone Star Governance goals and on equity for some of the district—s most vulnerable students. "The right of every student can't be true if it doesn't include students in special ed," Little said.

Key findings and proposed measures - Academic outcomes: Little said fewer than 25% of students in special education meet grade‑level benchmarks on the district—s measures. He also said college, career and military readiness rates for students served in special education have historically been under 5%. - IEP quality and implementation: Auditors and district staff reported inconsistent quality and accuracy of IEPs across campuses, with some plans described as "copy‑paste" and needing stronger individualized goals and monitoring. - Placement and inclusion: The audit recommended a shift toward inclusive placements where appropriate and a renewed emphasis on co‑teaching and general/special educator collaboration. - Identification and MTSS: District leaders said the system has performed premature referrals at times and urged a more robust MTSS framework so more students receive interventions before a special‑education referral. - Data and finance: The audit identified a lack of integrated data systems and said the district has spent more on special education in recent years than the federal and categorical revenues credited to the program.

Superintendent Marcy Sorensen presented proposed superintendent constraints and associated progress measures tied to the audit. The measures for constraint 2 (protecting students with disabilities) include: - 2.1: At least 85% of IEPs should meet a district IEP quality rubric by the 2028–29 school year. - 2.2: At least 85% of newly referred students must have a fully documented MTSS intervention plan prior to special‑education referral by 2028–29.

Sorensen characterized the proposed constraints as safeguards and transparency measures: "Constraint 2 says that the superintendent is not going to allow harm to children with disabilities," she said.

Discussion and next steps Board members asked detailed questions about prevalence, referral quality and dismissal from special education. Little and Sorensen said MTSS will be districtwide and is "not the road to special education" but a framework to prevent students from unnecessarily entering special education and to provide supports for any student who needs them.

The audit team will make appendices and supporting materials available on the district website and in district communications, and the administration said it will return with an implementation sequencing plan and a multi‑year Gantt showing priorities phased across the coming years. Little and Sorensen emphasized that many recommendations will require multi‑year work on staffing, professional learning, data systems and budget alignment.

No formal board vote on adoption of the audit recommendations or the superintendent—s constraint progress measures was recorded at the meeting; staff presented the findings and proposed measures and took board questions.