More than a decade of federal oversight of special education in New Orleans charter schools has ended, following a Tuesday (March 31) decision by U.S. District Judge Jay Zainey to terminate a sweeping consent judgment, which went into effect in early 2015.
That consent judgment resulted from a class-action lawsuit filed by parents of charter school students against the Louisiana Department of Education. In the years after Hurricane Katrina, the state
took over the majority of the city’s schools, converting them from traditional, district-run schools to quasi-autonomous charters, whose day-to-day operations are managed by private, nonprofit groups. The Orleans Parish School Board, which has since taken over the regulation of nearly all of the city’s schools, was later added as a co-defendant.
The 2010 suit alleged that the city’s charter schools discriminated against special education students in their application processes and did not provide them appropriate educational services, as federal law requires. The consent judgment required intensive monitoring of both charter school operators and of the two regulatory bodies responsible for making sure charters comply with federal special education laws: the Department of Education and the NOLA Public Schools district, which is the administrative arm of the Orleans Parish School Board.
After years of good marks from a court-appointed independent monitor, OPSB and the Department of Education formally requested to be released from federal monitoring. But parents of students with disabilities and the Southern Poverty Law Center, which represents the plaintiffs, had asked the court to continue the consent judgement, saying the city’s schools were not ready to come out from under federal oversight.
During an informal hearing before Zainey in November, called in order to hear parents’ concerns over the potential termination of the consent decree, dozens of people alleged that their children had been subjected to violations of federal special education law, despite federal monitoring. Plaintiffs said that the school district and state still lacked robust internal monitoring and oversight of New Orleans charters for the consent decree to end.
But Zainey disagreed. Though problems with special education persist at some schools, the consent decree was primarily intended to address systemic issues — and whether the state and district are catching problems and implementing plans to correct them — rather than individual students’ experiences.
“Most if not all of the individual problems raised could not plausibly be traced to a systemic failure, and some problems, while causing palpable frustration to class members, did not necessarily constitute a violation of federal law,” Zainey wrote in his ruling terminating the consent judgment this week.
Zainey added that the state and district both addressed parent concerns following the hearing — even if it wasn’t through contacting parents directly — by creating positions to investigate special education complaints, with an attorney and ombudsman, respectively.
Ted Beasley, a spokesperson for the Louisiana Department of Education, wrote in an email to Verite News the department will continue to work with parents and school systems to make sure they are fulfilling their responsibilities under federal law.
“This case began more than a decade ago with serious concerns about services for students with disabilities,” Beasley wrote. “We appreciate the court’s decision and their acknowledgement of the years of work that led to this point.”
Zainey noted that the independent monitors have found both OPSB and LDOE to be in substantial compliance for eight consecutive years, well over the two years needed to end the consent decree. But the plaintiffs have long disagreed with the court’s definition of substantial compliance, which relies on the parties’ compliance with provisions laid out in the consent decree. Attorneys with the SPLC argue that substantial compliance should instead be based on how well the defendants are actually following special education law.
The plaintiffs’ opposition to the termination of the consent decree hinged on findings from a 2024 report by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor that found that the Louisiana Department of Education needed to improve monitoring systems to better follow federal special education law. The report said the department relied on districts self-reporting compliance, and that intensive on-site reviews took place mostly in Orleans Parish, which Zainey said could mean that the consent decree was “taxing LDOE’s limited resources.”
Late last year, SPLC attorney Lauren Winkler argued that the state still lacks systems that would make it easy for parents to report violations of federal special education law, like an online complaint system. At the time, Winkler said her team was still seeing issues of students being subtly pushed out of schools due to their disabilities and being denied proper services.
“They’re not really looking at what actually the results are,” Winkler said last year, saying the defendants had only managed to achieve “paper compliance.”
Following this week’s ruling, another attorney on the case, Neil Ranu, said in a written statement that the SPLC was disappointed by the decision to terminate the consent decree.
“While we have seen some progress over the past 10 years, the school system still cannot guarantee that students with disabilities will receive the services they are entitled to under law,” Ranu wrote. “SPLC intends to vigorously support their efforts to see this federal right fulfilled for every student.”
The NOLA Public Schools district celebrated the end of the consent decree, highlighting the changes it has made to better improve conditions for students with special needs, like resource guides and the creation of shared services, in a press release.
“This is a proud day for our students, our families, our schools, and every member of our team who poured their heart into this work,” said NOLA Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Fateama S. Fulmore. “We set out to build something that would last, and the court’s ruling confirms that we did exactly that. Our commitment to students with disabilities is not just about compliance. It’s always about doing right by our children. Our work is not finished; it is ongoing and will continue to improve.”
___
This story was originally published by Verite News and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
