> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Audit of Santa Monica-Malibu special education program raises transparency concerns - URL: https://www.smdp.com/failing-grade/ - Published: 2008-04-02T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T19:08:06.000Z - Author: Melody Hanatani - Tags: Education, Malibu, #archive-import *Special ed audit reveals shortcomings in program* Those are the thoughts and suggestions outlined in a 78-page audit report prepared by Lou Barber and Associates, a consultant that recently evaluated the special education program in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. The report, released to the public on Monday, provides observations and recommendations on existing practices in the special education department, which has come under fire by parents in recent years for an alleged lack of transparency. The report provides an overview of the program, focusing on issues such as staffing, costs and funding streams. But the center of contention and the catalyst for the audit were complaints from parents about the practice of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses related to their children’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP), which outlines specialized services that the particular student will receive during the school year. The settlement agreements are normally entered into after there is an impasse in the IEP process, parents meeting with a senior district administrator to resolve their differences. Within the settlement agreement is a confidentiality clause that bars the parents from speaking to a third party about the services outlined within. “Many parents reported feeling physically ill because they felt forced to sign a document that they did not agree with but ‘had to sign to get their child services,’” the report states. The audit was made mandatory by the Santa Monica City Council last year in order for the school district to receive a $530,000 increase in city aid. The council, after hearing from several special education parents who claimed a culture of fear exists within the district, demanded the Board of Education conduct a comprehensive assessment of the program. Lou Barber was retained late last year to perform the audit and began conducting interviews with parents, teachers and administrators earlier this year. Barber estimates speaking to more than 50 parents. “Some had very intense stories about things that happened to them or their children, the feeling of frustration, of trying to ever get settled on what their child would be receiving in service,” Barber said in an interview on Tuesday. Barber said he doesn’t believe the district deliberately tried to create a hostile atmosphere, but believes that is the perception that many parents have. “One parent said to me it’s like standing on a floating device, you’re never secure,” Barber said. “You don’t know where you can stand and can’t stand.” In speaking with surrounding school districts, issuing a settlement agreement is a practice that does occur, though not as frequently as in SMMUSD, Barber said in the report. The SMMUSD has entered into more than 140 settlement agreements in the past three years. While the practice of settlement agreements and confidentiality clauses is not illegal, there are concerns with its over reliance, the report states. In addition to lessening the practice of such agreements, Barber recommends that the services outlined in the document be transferred to the IEP, another concern raised by parents in the past. The failure to include those services raises several issues, including the inability to maintain an accurate history of the student’s educational history. “Stay-put provisions, which ensures that a student’s placement will not change absent a signed IEP, no longer guarantees a child’s actual placement because the child’s actual service and perhaps placement are not identified on the IEP,” the report states. “This becomes even more problematic should a child move out of the district.” Lee Jones, the co-chair of the Special Education District Advisory Committee, said on Tuesday that she was encouraged by the special education report, which confirms the complaints and concerns of parents for years. “The most important area of concern to us — the private settlement agreements and the fact that services were not written into the IEP — has been addressed and strongly recommended by the consultant that it be rectified,” Jones said. “The process that currently exists needs to be corrected.” School Board President Oscar de la Torre said he was surprised to learn that costs have actually increased in special education when the student population has decreased. He was under the impression that the settlement agreement was a means to avoid a costly legal battle with parents over the IEP. “We use it almost as a first resort and it shouldn’t be a first resort,” de la Torre said. CONTRACT EXTENSIONS RAISE CONCERNS Several parents voiced concerns last week when they noticed that there was an agenda item to extend a senior district administrator’s contract in the closed session portion of the school board meeting this Thursday night, the same night the audit is scheduled to be discussed. That administrator, Deputy Superintendent Tim Walker, was the figure at the center of controversy in the special education allegations when they broke out in 2006. The item, which did not specifically name the administrator or the position, has since been pulled from the agenda. De la Torre confirmed on Tuesday that it was Walker and Assistant Superintendent Mike Matthews’ contracts that were scheduled to be discussed in closed session. “I think it would be premature to extend the contract before we have an accountability session regarding the findings of the audit,” de la Torre said. “Furthermore, it doesn’t rest well with other district employees when we are laying off so many teachers and at the same time extending administrators’ contracts 18 months in advance.” Jones said the closed session agenda item demonstrates there hasn’t been much change in the district with regards to transparency. “It indicates that as of today, it’s business as usual with the Board of Education,”Jones said. The council is also expected to discuss the audit during an upcoming meeting this month. The results of the audit could also determine whether the council will decide to withhold funding from the district. “The council is going to listen to it to see if there are any concerns,” Mayor Herb Katz said. “Half a million dollars isn’t chicken feed. It’s chopped liver, but it isn’t chicken feed.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on April 2, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/040208.pdf?ref=smdp.com)