October 5, 2005

Honorable Noreen Michael

Commissioner

Virgin Islands Department of Education

44-46 Kongens Gade

Charlotte Amalie

St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802

Dear Dr. Michael:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the Office
of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) recent verification activities
in the Virgin Islands. As indicated in my letter to you on February 3,
2005, OSEP is conducting verification visits to a number of States[^1]
as part of our Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System
(CIFMS) for ensuring compliance with, and improving performance under,
Parts B and C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Parts
B and C of IDEA). We conducted our visit to the Virgin Islands during
the week of February 28, 2005. This letter addresses our findings
regarding your systems as well as the status of compliance under the
Special Conditions attached to the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2004 Part B
Grant Award.

The purpose of our verification reviews of States is to determine how
they use their general supervision, State-reported data collection, and
statewide assessment systems to assess and improve State performance;
and to protect child and family rights. The information gathered through
the verification visits are intended to assist OSEP to: (1) understand
how the systems work at the State level; (2) determine how the State
collects and uses data to make monitoring decisions; and (3) determine
the extent to which the State's systems are designed to identify and
correct noncompliance.

As part of the verification visit to the Virgin Islands Department of
Education (VIDE), OSEP staff met with Mrs. Carrie Johns, Acting VIDE
Director of Special Education, and members of VIDE's staff who are
responsible for the oversight of general supervision activities
(including monitoring, mediation, complaint resolution, and impartial
due process hearings); the collection and analysis of State-reported
data; and ensuring the participation in, and reporting of student
performance on, Statewide assessments. Prior to and during the visit,
OSEP staff reviewed a number of documents[^2], including the following:
(1) VIDE's FFY 2002 Part B Annual Performance Report (APR); (2) VIDE's
Part B of IDEA application for FFY 2004; (3) documentation submitted
under the Special Conditions to the FFY 2004 Part B grant award,
including the November 2004 and February 2005 data reports, the State
complaint procedures, parents' rights handbook, the interagency
agreement for children transitioning from Part C to Part B, the
territory's preschool continuum plan, least restrictive environment
(LRE) monitoring procedures and the Virgin Islands policies and
procedures (VIPP); (4) VIDE's written responses to OSEP's desk audits
for the three systems; (5) U.S. Virgin Islands Territorial Assessment of
Learning (VITAL) manual - [Inclusion of Students with Disabilities and
English Language Learners]{.underline} (VIDE, 2005); (6) VIDE's
complaint, mediation and due process logs and a random sample of
complaint and due process decisions; and (7) other information provided
by the State.

OSEP also conducted conference calls on February 17 and 22, 2005 with
parents, stakeholders, advocates and members from the Virgin Islands'
Steering Committee to hear their perspectives on the strengths and
weaknesses of the State's systems for general supervision, data
collection, and State-wide Assessment. VIDE Part B staff participated in
the calls and assisted OSEP by recommending and inviting the
participants.

The information that Mrs. Johns and other VIDE staff provided during the
OSEP visit, together with all of the information that OSEP staff
reviewed in preparation for the visit, greatly enhanced our
understanding of VIDE's systems for general supervision, data collection
and reporting, and Statewide assessment.

# General Supervision

In reviewing the State's general supervision system, OSEP collected
information regarding a number of elements, including whether the State:
(1) has identified any barriers (e.g., limitations on authority,
insufficient staff or other resources, etc.) that impede the State's
ability to identify and correct noncompliance; (2) has systemic,
data-based and reasonable approaches to identifying and correcting
noncompliance; (3) utilizes guidance, technical assistance, follow-up,
and---if necessary---sanctions, to ensure timely correction of
noncompliance; (4) has dispute resolution systems that ensure the timely
resolution of complaints and due process hearings; and (5) has
mechanisms in place to compile and integrate data across systems (e.g.,
section 618 State-reported data, due process hearings, complaints,
mediation, large-scale assessments, previous monitoring results, etc.)
to identify systemic issues and problems.

[Monitoring]{.underline}

Under 20 USC §§1412(a)(11) and 1232d (b), and 34 CFR §300.600, VIDE has
general supervisory responsibilities, including utilizing proper methods
for ensuring that program requirements are met. During OSEP's previous
monitoring reviews (December 2000, February 2002 and February 2003),
VIDE presented a 5-year cyclical monitoring process intended to enable
VIDE to monitor all of its schools and programs beginning in 2000. The
monitoring process described by VIDE included a two-tier process
designed to focus federal, state and local resources on improving
educational results for children with disabilities, while also
maintaining a focus on compliance.

Tier I activities were described as including on-going monitoring of
district-level activities through monthly and/or quarterly reports
submitted by the District Coordinator/Directors regarding child count,
provision of special education and related services, personnel
vacancies, and state complaint/due process/mediation requests.

Tier II activities were described in four levels:

-   Level I: One month prior to an onsite visit, a planning meeting or
    phone conference is held with the District Superintendent and other
    designated staff to discuss the overview of the monitoring process,
    schedule onsite visits, schedule file review visits, and explain the
    purpose of surveys and timelines for submission of district
    information.

-   Level II: During the onsite visit, the monitoring team uses the
    Student File Review form to review ten percent of student records
    (or at least 25 student records) to verify compliance and visits to
    classrooms to conduct interviews with appropriate staff. VIDE uses
    checklists or surveys to conduct interviews with special education
    teachers, general education teachers, related service providers,
    administrators and supervisors, students and parents. Entities not
    selected for an onsite visit are monitored using the reports
    generated monthly through the Virgin Islands' State Special
    Education Information Management System, Goalview, (i.e. timely
    implementation of IEPs, reevaluations, student records, and general
    education placement).

> A final monitoring report, based on the data collected during the site
> visit, is issued to the Insular Superintendents, District Director and
> other appropriate staff, requiring the submission of a corrective
> action plan within 60 days for any identified noncompliance.

-   Level III: The State Compliance Unit notifies the State Director and
    District Directors of Special Education if the corrective actions
    are not completed in a timely manner. If substantial progress is not
    made, the District Superintendent is notified that the school
    district has thirty days to implement the required actions or
    sanctions will be implemented.

-   Level IV: If the local educational agency (LEA) fails to comply with
    the corrective actions, the State Director of Special Education will
    initiate sanctions. The LEA must still implement the corrective
    actions.

VIDE reported that it has authority to enforce correction of identified
deficiencies under the U.S. Virgin Islands Bill of Rights of Handicapped
Children (Act 4667) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Following the dissemination of final monitoring findings, the SEA
director writes to the respective LEAs requesting documentation that it
has corrected all identified systemic deficiencies. If a district
requests technical assistance from the SEA in order to correct
identified noncompliance, assistance is provided by the SEA. Districts
are also required to demonstrate progress in correcting identified
systemic deficiencies by including performance measures in their LEA
application for Part B funds for the current fiscal year. Also, LEAs
were required to include in their application, performance measures that
correlate reporting under the Special Conditions and corrective action
plans, as appropriate.

Based on the cyclical monitoring process described above, VIDE was to
have completed the five year cycle by 2005. However, because of staffing
shortages, VIDE ceased its cyclical monitoring process after Cycle II
and instead, for what would have been Cycle III, implemented interim
monitoring measures and only conducted a focused monitoring review of
extended school year services and compensatory education during the
summer of 2003. Although this review was completed and VIDE reported in
its FY'02 APR that a "final monitoring report" was issued, VIDE
acknowledged that there was actually no official written report of
findings of noncompliance issued, but rather an identification of
strengths, weaknesses and areas for improvement for both LEAs. Through
document review and interviews, OSEP confirmed that VIDE targeted the
areas of noncompliance identified in OSEP's FY'04 Grant Award through
various means such as desk audits, random sampling of IEPs through its
special education student database, and data reports under the 2004
Special Conditions. However, VIDE cannot demonstrate that it has an
effective method for identifying and correcting noncompliance with Part
B requirements. The interim monitoring measures were limited to two
areas under IDEA and did not identify new noncompliance that was
identified by OSEP during the verification visit and set out in this
letter.

At the time of OSEP's visit, VIDE indicated that it had not completed
the 5 year cyclical monitoring process due to staff shortages and that
it has not been able to ensure correction of all noncompliance
identified in Cycle II. Originally, VIDE reported having 5 staff members
available to monitor. VIDE currently only has 2 people available to
monitor and they both have other full-time responsibilities. The
positions of VIDE Compliance Monitor and VIDE Assistant Director are
currently vacant. The Acting VIDE Director advised OSEP that she has
requested 3 new positions for monitoring and one new position for data
entry in an effort to get back on track with cyclical monitoring and/or
other monitoring strategies that would enable VIDE to identify and
correct noncompliance in both LEAs. In the interim, in lieu of the
cyclical monitoring process described above, VIDE has been utilizing
other available methods to identify noncompliance including: (1)
periodic desk audits using the Goalview database for student's
individualized education programs (IEPs), educational diagnostic
records, and students' special education records; (2) data reported
under the 2004 Special Conditions; (3) data reports generated to meet
the requirements of section 618; (4) OCR monitoring reports and
resolution agreements; and (5) prior OSEP monitoring reports

OSEP has determined that VIDE is not meeting the requirements of 20 USC
§§1412(a)(11) and 1232(b) and 34 CFR §300.600 to utilize proper methods
for ensuring that program requirements are met. That is, VIDE is not
properly identifying and correcting noncompliance consistent with its
established monitoring system. In its March 2005 letter, OSEP required
that VIDE address this issue in the FFY 2003 APR. VIDE's FFY 2003 APR is
currently under review and will be responded to under separate cover.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, VIDE must submit: (1) a plan
outlining the steps, including timelines, it is going to take to ensure
that it has a method for systematically monitoring all Part B
requirements and identifying and correcting all identified
noncompliance; (2) documentation that all identified noncompliance
identified in the Cycle II monitoring report has been corrected; or in
the event that it has not, sanctions have been applied to the specific
LEA(s); and (3) documentation that the areas of weakness identified in
the summer 2003 monitoring visits focused on extended school year and
compensatory services have been addressed.

[Dispute Resolution]{.underline}

VIDE reported that it utilizes the State complaint system, due process
hearings and mediation to resolve disputes. Under the Special Conditions
to the FFY 2004 Part B grant award, VIDE was required to revise its
State complaint procedures and its parents' rights handbook to be
consistent with the requirements of the IDEA as amended in 1997. VIDE
resubmitted and received OSEP approval of both of these items in
February 2005.[^3] At the time of OSEP's visit, the Acting State
Director stated that she would be redistributing the revised documents
to all parents at every opportunity where the documents would naturally
be presented (i.e. filing a complaint, requesting a due process, initial
and reevaluation meetings and at IEP meetings).

OSEP reviewed VIDE's state complaint logs, mediation and due process
hearing logs and found that the one due process hearing that was filed
exceeded the 45-day timeline for issuing a final decision to the
parties. The decision had not been issued at the time of the visit. (34
CFR §300.511 (2004)) In discussions regarding this instance of
noncompliance, OSEP clarified with VIDE that the 45-day timeline applies
unless a specific extension of time is granted by the hearing officer at
the request of a party and that mediation may not be used to delay or
deny a parent's right to a due process hearing or to deny any other
rights under Part B (See 34 CFR §300.506(b)).

As part of OSEP's interview regarding the SEA's ability to monitor and
enforce the corrective actions ordered under State complaint decisions,
due process hearing decisions, and/or a mediation agreement, VIDE/State
Disability Compliance Manager stated that upon receipt of mediation
agreements and due process hearing decisions, the SEA notifies the
respective LEA of the decision and reiterates the timelines for
completing the corrective actions. She also stated that, although the
SEA issues required corrective actions for formal State complaints with
required timelines for implementation, the SEA does not have a mechanism
to monitor the implementation of the corrective actions.

OSEP determined that VIDE has ineffective procedures for tracking and
monitoring the implementation of corrections resulting from final State
complaint decisions, due process decisions and mediation agreements. At
the time of OSEP's visit, VIDE was unable to provide evidence of the
implementation and completion of all corrective actions ordered through
these dispute resolution mechanisms. OSEP learned that VIDE does not
have procedures nor a system to document correction of noncompliance or
of the completion of corrective action plans issued through the dispute
resolution systems. VIDE Disability Compliance Manager reported that
VIDE could not demonstrate that all noncompliance was corrected in a
timely manner or that VIDE had procedures to verify correction of
noncompliance. VIDE's Disability Compliance Manager stated that in the
future, phone calls will be followed-up in writing and that the SEA will
use its enforcement options, including rewards and sanctions approved by
the Commissioner of Education, to address continued noncompliance. The
SEA is planning to revise its current state complaint, mediation and due
process logs to include detailed information on the status of corrective
actions and allow the SEA to track the status of correction of
noncompliance as well as establishing a new filing system.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, VIDE must submit: (1) a plan
that outlines the steps VIDE will take to ensure that all corrective
actions ordered in State complaint decisions, mediation agreements and
due process hearings are implemented as directed and that VIDE has a
method for tracking and monitoring the implementation of these
corrective actions; (2) a copy of its revised complaint, mediation and
due process logs that incorporate sufficient information to allow VIDE
to determine the status of correction at all times; and (3) a copy of
the final due process decision that was overdue at the time of the
visit.

#### ***Status of FFY 2004 Special Conditions on Part B Issues*** 

On September 24, 2004, VIDE's FFY 2004 Part B Grant Award was issued
with Special Conditions related to programmatic requirements under Part
B. The programmatic special conditions directed VIDE to address the
following areas: (1) timeliness of evaluations; (2) provision of special
education and related services; (3) provision of transportation services
to ensure full school day attendance; (4) sufficient supply of qualified
personnel to ensure that all needed special education and related
services are provided; (5) provision of compensatory services where the
related services specified on a child's IEP were not provided; (6)
ensuring that all eligible children transitioning from Part C to Part B
had timely IEPs/IFSPs and received special education and related
services by their third birthday, including those eligible children who
turned three during the summer months; (7) availability of a preschool
continuum of placement options to ensure a free appropriate public
education; and (8) the revision of State complaint procedures, Parents
Rights Handbook and the Virgin Islands Special Education Policies and
Procedures (VIPP). In order to determine the status of VIDE's compliance
under the 2004 Special Conditions, OSEP reviewed the November 2004 and
February 2005 data reports submitted by VIDE and interviewed LEA and SEA
staff responsible for monitoring, collecting and reporting data under
the 2004 Special Conditions.

With the exception of a November 2004 deadline for addressing the system
of comprehensive personnel development (CSPD)[^4], a revised preschool
continuum option plan, state complaint procedures and the procedural
safeguards notice, VIDE was required to complete all the other
programmatic conditions no later than April 30, 2005. At the time of
OSEP's February 2005 visit, OSEP determined VIDE's compliance under the
2004 Special Conditions as follows:

[Timeliness of Evaluations]{.underline}

At the time of the 2004 Special Conditions VIDE was reporting a backlog
of 20 overdue triennials (due before 10/99) and a backlog of 181 overdue
triennials (due after 10/99). At the time of OSEP's February 2005 visit,
the total number of overdue triennials (due before 10/99) was reduced to
zero and the total number of overdue triennials (due after 10/99) was
reduced by 54% to a balance of 74 (17 for St. Croix and 57 for St.
Thomas/St John). Both LEAs cited staff shortages as the reason for the
continued backlog, despite continued efforts to complete evaluations
using strategies such as a Saturday Initiative for testing on St.
Thomas; use of per diem options to hire evaluators and summer testing on
St. Croix, and ongoing recruitment efforts. LEA and SEA staff reported
that barriers to hiring necessary evaluation personnel include lack of
competitive salaries, VIDE's policy of granting only five years of
creditable service from other jurisdictions and the delays in the Board
of Education processing applicants credentials. VIDE has met the
requirements of the Special Conditions for the triennial evaluations
that were due before October 1999 and no further action is required.
However, VIDE has not demonstrated full compliance for the triennial
evaluations due after October 1999 and must continue to report on the
completion of those evaluations.

> [Provision of Special Education and Related Services and Adequate
> Supply of Qualified Personnel]{.underline}

The 2004 Special Conditions required that VIDE reduce the backlog to
zero of students not receiving all the related services listed on their
IEPs by using appropriate methods including ensuring that a sufficient
supply of qualified personnel are available to provide such services. In
the November 2004 data report, St. Croix reported that 42 students did
not receive speech therapy services in two schools due to a lack of
speech therapists and a total of 11 students did not receive resource
special education services due to the lack of a resource teacher. During
OSEP's February 2005 visit, St. Croix staff reported that the 42
students reported in the November 2004 data report as not receiving
speech therapy services were receiving services as the result of two new
therapists being hired in January and February 2005. A resource teacher
was also reassigned in January to address the 11 students not receiving
special education resource services. Compensatory services were provided
to those students. St. Thomas/St. John staff reported that it was
tracking the approximately 108 students who did not receive related
services for at least 1-3 sessions due to a lack of substitute
therapists and that these students would receive compensatory services
either during the school year or during the summer. Staff also reported
that, of the 108 students who did not receive related services, 7
students did not receive speech therapy for 1 year, 5 students did not
receive speech therapy for 1 month and 29 students did not receive
counseling services for 2 months. Staff reported that compensatory
services were being provided to those students by adding additional time
onto students' sessions or by providing the services during summer
sessions. In addition, to ensure the provision of related services on an
ongoing basis, VIDE reported strategies to actively recruit personnel,
shift the schedules of existing personnel and contract with outside
providers to provide related services. VIDE has met the requirements of
the FFY 2004 Special Conditions related to the provision of special
education and related services and no further action is required.

The 2004 Special Conditions required that VIDE implement all needed
revisions to its Comprehensive System of Personnel Development to
address long-standing vacancies and continue to report on personnel
vacancies. In the November 2004 data report personnel vacancies were
reported including a total of 4 speech therapists; 18 teachers; 3 school
psychologists; 2 social workers; 2 educational diagnosticians; and 5
paraprofessionals. At the time of OSEP's February visit a total of 38
vacancies were reported. These vacancies represent a total of 1
occupational therapist; 1 physical therapist; 5 speech therapists; 16
teachers; 3 school psychologists; 3 social workers; 3 educational
diagnosticians; 5 paraprofessionals and 1 special education supervisor.
LEA strategies to address these personnel vacancies included the use of
substitute teachers, combining classes with low enrollment, reassigning
related services staff caseloads and ongoing recruitment. Barriers to
securing staff were reported to include the lack of a provisional
certification option, noncompetitive salaries, high cost of living, and
no reciprocity with the States. The SEA is pursuing negotiations with
several universities regarding the options of using speech therapy
assistants, social work assistants and psychology assistants working
under the supervision of licensed professionals as a means to address
personnel shortages.

The IDEA requirements regarding a comprehensive system of personnel
development and personnel standards (see section 612(a)(14) and (15)
(1997)) have been removed from the statute and replaced by statutory
provisions related to States\' establishment and maintenance of
personnel qualifications for special education teachers that align Part
B with the highly qualified teacher provisions in section 1119(a)(2) of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and that also address
personnel qualifications for related services providers and
paraprofessionals (see section 612(a)(14) (effective July 1, 2005)).

OSEP appreciates the efforts made by VIDE in this area. Because the
requirements related to qualified personnel have been superseded by
statutory changes and are no longer appropriate, no further action is
required to address this special condition.

##### Full School Day/Transportation 

The 2004 Special Conditions required that VIDE ensure that all students
who are eligible, receive appropriate transportation services in order
to attend school for a full school day. VIDE's November 2004 and
February 2005 data reports indicate that the "Spot Check Plan" that VIDE
instituted with the LEAs to monitor the provision of transportation
services to enable a full school day is consistently identifying
problems with transportation services. At the time of OSEP's February
2005 visit, each LEA reported a total of 8 students had not received
transportation for 1-2 days due to bus equipment failure. Each LEA is
self-monitoring through the Spot Check Plan required by the SEA[^5]. St.
Croix reported working with the building principals and the bus company
to address late arrivals and early departures. St. Thomas reported
working to address the issue of equipment maintenance and delays in
repairing recently purchased busses. VIDE has met the requirements of
the Special Conditions in the area of transportation services needed in
order for children to attend school for a full school day. No further
action is required.

[Compensatory Education]{.underline}

The 2004 Special Conditions required that VIDE ensure that all students
who do not receive all the services set out in their IEPs are considered
for compensatory services and that, where appropriate, such services are
provided or reimbursement for parentally-funded compensatory services is
provided in a timely manner. At the time of OSEP's February 2005 visit,
St. Croix reported that it had instituted after school programs at six
schools in order to provide compensatory services. St. Thomas reported
addressing compensatory services by adding extra time to therapy
sessions and providing compensatory services through summer school
sessions. OSEP found that St. Croix sends letters to parents notifying
them of the need for and date of provision of compensatory services.

However, OSEP learned through staff interviews that St. Croix was not
providing transportation for compensatory services at the schools where
it was offered. VIDE must monitor to ensure the provision of
transportation for compensatory services when necessary for the child to
receive compensatory services (34 CFR §300.24(b)(15). VIDE must submit a
plan to OSEP within 60 days of the date of this letter, including
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines designed
to ensure correction of the noncompliance as soon as possible, not to
exceed one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan. No later than six
months from the date of this letter, the State must submit a Progress
Report including data and analysis demonstrating progress toward
compliance and provide a report to OSEP, with data and analysis
demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but not later than 30
days following one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan.

> [Transition from Part C (Early Intervention Services) to Part
> B]{.underline}

The 2004 Special Conditions required that, no later than April 30, 2005,
VIDE ensure that all eligible students transitioning from Part C to Part
B had timely IEPs or IFSPs and were receiving special education and
related services by their third birthday, including those eligible
children who turned three during the summer months; and submit all
revisions necessary to finalize an Interagency Agreement between the
Virgin Islands Department of Health (VIDH) and VIDE for Part C to Part B
transition that met all federal requirements and addressed the issues
identified in OSEP's analysis dated May 10, 2004.

VIDE submitted a revised interagency agreement for the transitioning of
children from Part C to Part B that was approved on February 16, 2005.
OSEP found that although the interagency agreement effectively
delineates the responsibilities of VIDE and VIDH in meeting the
transition requirements, there are no clearly established procedures for
implementing the terms of the agreement. VIDE and VIDH agreed to meet in
the near future to ensure that the referral procedures are clarified and
to develop procedures that enable staff to appropriately implement the
agreement.

At the time of OSEP's February 2005 visit, St. Croix reported a total of
30 children referred by Part C to Part B and that 19 had been determined
eligible and were receiving Part B services. However, OSEP found that
the remaining 11 children who had been referred were on a waiting list
for Part B services. OSEP advised the SEA Director that eligibility for
those children would need to be immediately addressed and, if
appropriate, the children should be transitioned to Part B services. St.
Thomas reported 7 students were referred from Part C to Part B. Of this
total, 4 were receiving Part B services; 3 were waiting for paperwork to
be processed by HeadStart. LEA placement staff responsible were unable
to verify whether or not these 3 students were receiving Part B services
at the time of OSEP's visit.

During the verification visit, through interviews with Part B and Part C
staff responsible for transition from Part C to Part B and onsite review
of files and IEPs for preschool children with disabilities, OSEP
determined that VIDE has no current method for monitoring and ensuring
that children transitioning from Part C to Part B, who have been
determined eligible for Part B services, are indeed receiving those
services. In its March 2005 letter, OSEP required that VIDE ensure that
it was monitoring for compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR
§300.132 that eligible children with disabilities transitioning from
Part C to Part B receive special education and related services by their
third birthday. OSEP required VIDE to provide OSEP with a progress
report on September 3, 2005, six months from the date of that letter.
OSEP has not yet received that report. Therefore, VIDE must: (1) no
later than 30 days from the date of this letter, provide OSEP with a
plan for monitoring the requirements at 34 CFR §300.132(b) that an IEP
or IFSP has been developed and is being implemented for all children
found eligible for Part B services, by their third birthday; and (2) in
the State Performance Plan (SPP) due December 2, 2005, submit data and
analysis demonstrating progress towards full compliance and provide a
final report to OSEP, with data and analysis demonstrating full
compliance, as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following
the end of the one-year timeline.

[Continuum of Placement Options]{.underline}

The 2004 Special Conditions required that VIDE revise and resubmit the
preschool continuum option plan and related LRE monitoring documents to
address the issues identified in OSEP's July and September 2004
analyses. VIDE revised and resubmitted the preschool continuum option
plan and related LRE monitoring documents. At the time of OSEP's
February 2005 visit, OSEP found that St. Thomas had a full continuum of
preschool options that included HeadStart and four private preschools.
VIDE has met the requirements of this Special Condition and no further
actions is required.

[General Supervision and Monitoring (Eligibility
Documentation)]{.underline}

The 2004 Special Conditions required that VIDE revise and resubmit the
following documents, addressing all issues identified in OSEP's April 1,
2004, May 14, 2004, August 2004 and September 2004 analyses: (1) state
complaint procedures; (2) procedural safeguards notice; (3) Interagency
Agreement for Secondary Transition; and (4) its policies and procedures
document (VIPP). OSEP reviewed and approved VIDE's state complaint
procedures and procedural safeguards notice on February 13, 2005 and
February 20, 2005, respectively. VIDE resubmitted revised policies and
procedures on June 27, 2005. This document has been reviewed and fully
approved. The revised Interagency Agreement for Secondary Transition
also has been reviewed and fully approved. No further action is required
to address eligibility documentation.

***Collection of data under section 618 of the IDEA***

In looking at the State's system for data collection and reporting, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) provides clear guidance and ongoing training to local
programs/public agencies regarding requirements and procedures for
reporting data under section 618 of the IDEA; (2) implements procedures
to determine whether the individuals who enter and report data at the
local and/or regional level do so accurately and in a manner that is
consistent with the State's procedures, OSEP guidance, and section 618;
(3) implements procedures for identifying anomalies in data that are
reported, and correcting any inaccuracies; and (4) has identified
barriers, (e.g., limitations on authority, sufficient staff or other
resources, etc.) that impede the State's ability to accurately, reliably
collect and report data under section 618.

Staff reported that in 2000, VIDE designated a full time data manager
position. The primary responsibility for this position focused on
collecting, analyzing and completing the annual data reports required
under section 618. Other responsibilities for this position included
preparing reports of monitoring visits and assisting in the correction
of identified noncompliance; investigation of complaints; serving on the
Accessibility Task Force and other committees; and working with advocacy
organizations to provide training. The Compliance Unit Manager has also
been trained in the compilation of the section 618 data and serves as a
back-up position to the data manager. The Acting VIDE Director of
Special Education acknowledges a need to provide additional support to
the data manager position and is seeking additional personnel on a
contractual basis to assist with data analysis and verification.

Through technical assistance from the Southeast Regional Resource Center
(SERRC) and the National Center for Special Education Accountability and
Monitoring (NCSEAM), VIDE developed a Monitoring Accountability Work
plan that included a draft Special Education Data Policy, which has been
submitted to the Commissioner of Education for review and approval. The
draft policy provides a central location for collecting, maintaining and
reporting information. The policy establishes specific procedures for
ensuring that all information entered into Goalview, the special
education student database, is accurate, verified and updated in a
timely manner. The policy establishes that the Insular Superintendent or
designee is responsible for ensuring all information is entered by
established timelines by specific staff (i.e. evaluators, LEA
supervisors, related service providers and the teacher). The policy
requires monthly LEA random verification of data entry and accuracy and
annual VIDE verification of data policies, procedures and practices.

The Virgin Islands' State Office of Special Education has implemented
contractual arrangements for data collection utilizing Goalview. This
system is used for collecting student data for Part B at the local
level. The LEAs enter the data collected on students with disabilities
into Goalview. VIDE Office of Special Education collect(s) data via
electronic and paper from the schools and LEAs to complete federal data
reports required under section 618 (i.e. Child Count, LRE, Discipline
and Exiting Reports).

The SEA monitors the reliability in the system by completing monthly
reports that track timely implementation of IEPs, timely reevaluations,
student records, and placement information. The SEA utilizes
year-to-year comparisons to determine if there are gaps in the data.
Throughout the data collection process, the SEA uses the following
methods of facilitating accurate reporting by the LEAs:

1.  LEAs are required to complete data elements (i.e. age, disability
    condition) on their students with disabilities as of December 1 data
    collection.

2.  At the time of the December 1 Child Count, school administrators
    must certify the special education data.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Prior to submission of reports to the District Director, school
    administrators must transmit child count and other reports according
    to instructions and schedule.

4.  District directors verify information received from the schools and
    prepare a district report for submission to VIDE/ Director.

5.  Upon receipt of report by the VIDE Director, the data manager
    analyzes the data to identify errors.

6.  Reports are returned to the District Directors for correction, if
    discrepancies exist.

7.  The VIDE Data manager prepares a final section 618 data report for
    the VIDE Director's review.

8.  The final completed reports are transmitted to the Commissioner of
    Education for signature, if required.

Staff reported that the SEA ensures the validity and consistency of data
by providing guidance and ongoing training to the LEAs and implementing
the VIDE data policy and procedures for reporting data under section 618
of IDEA. VIDE reported that a variety of training has been provided to
personnel responsible for local education agency data input including:
(1) Goalview Distance Learning sessions via the internet provided to SEA
staff regarding input of IEPs; (2) specific data entry training to
special education teachers, school administrators, counselors and
related services personnel provided by the SEA data system case manager
and assistive technology specialist; and (3) technical assistance to LEA
administrators on data verification and student record review activities
provided by SEA monitoring unit staff. SEA staff also received technical
assistance from SERRC and NCSEAM in completing the National Monitoring
Accountability Checklist and in developing a VIDE Monitoring
Accountability Work Plan. The SEA data manager attends the Annual Part B
data manager's meeting sponsored by OSEP and WESTAT.

Staff reported that the SEA uses the section 618 data for targeting its
monitoring and determining trends in order to: (1) target data
collection for selected schools based on the greatest number of
discrepancies in their 618 data; (2) sample student's placement and
percentage of time outside the regular education classroom; (3)
determine in-service and off-island training needs; (4) make decisions
about equipment; (5) project personnel staffing needs, facilities
allocations and instructional materials needs; (6) effectively plan
curriculum; (7) determine the effectiveness of interagency agreements
and memoranda of understanding; and (8) track trends related to
graduation, drop-out, and suspension and expulsion rates.

The SEA reported on a variety of methods of reporting to the public on
data related to students with disabilities including, the December 1
child count, placement in the least restrictive environment, student
exiting and teacher certification. The data is posted on two Virgin
Islands' websites, broadcast on local cable channels, and is available
at the Curriculum Centers, the Insular Superintendent's Office and the
Commissioner of Education's Office.

The SEA identified the following barriers that impede the SEA's ability
to accurately and reliably collect and report data under section 618:
(1) shortage of data entry personnel; (2) need for additional training
in data collection processes, analysis, and verification of data; (3)
need for additional staff training on the Goalview system; (4) need to
develop and disseminate data profiles to schools; (5) need to increase
the collection of trend data related to graduation with a regular
diploma, drop-out and suspension/expulsion; (6) timely collection of
certification data on personnel who provide special education and
related services to students with disabilities; and (7) a need to
develop sanctions when LEA staff do not complete required data entry.

The SEA reported that the Goalview system could not interface with the
Virgin Islands' Department of Education's School Administrative Student
Information (SASI). The function of the Goalview system is to capture
IEP related data on students with disabilities. The function of SASI is
primarily used to collect demographic information, attendance, grades
and scheduling students. SASI currently maintains suspension/expulsion
information for junior and senior high schools, but does not maintain
information on graduation and drop-out rates. Due to an incompatibility
of systems, the SEA is unable to compare and report on graduation,
drop-out, and suspension/expulsion rates of students with disabilities
with nondisabled students.

Regulations at 34 CFR §300.146 require that VIDE have on file and
examine data to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in
the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with
disabilities among LEAs in the State or compared to the rates for
children without disabilities. VIDE's FFY 2002 APR submission did not
include information indicating that VIDE had identified significant
discrepancies in the LEAs. Instead, VIDE noted the very low rate of
long-term suspension and expulsion but did not compare LEAs or conclude
that no significant discrepancies were occurring. In its March 2005
letter, OSEP required VIDE to, in the FFY 2003 APR, specifically address
whether significant discrepancies in long-term suspensions and
expulsions are occurring based upon one of two comparisons described
above, and where it identified significant discrepancies, report on the
reviews and if, appropriate, revisions of (or requiring the affected
State agency or LEA to revise) policies, procedures and practices
consistent with 34 CFR §300.146. VIDE's FFY 2003 APR is currently under
review and OSEP will respond to this issue in its response to the APR.

In an interview with a SASI data manger, OSEP learned that, although
SASI protocols do not allow the importation of Goalview generated data
into the SASI system, there is a special education information module
available to schools that is not currently being used. It was OSEP's
understanding that there is a plan in process to address compatibility
of the systems. OSEP believes that, with the exception of the
incompatibility of the special education and general education databases
that would enable VIDE to have access to, collect and compare rates of
graduation, drop-out and suspension/expulsion between students with
disabilities and nondisabled students, VIDE's system of data collection
is reasonably calculated to collect the data required by section 618 of
IDEA. OSEP suggests that VIDE pursue arrangements with SASI to have
access to the data generated by SASI and that VIDE investigate other
ways to benefit from information collected by SASI. OSEP looks forward
to reviewing VIDE's efforts to ensure timely and accurate data in the
SPP due December 2, 2005.

*Statewide and Districtwide Assessment*

In 2002, VIDE entered into a Compliance Agreement (CA) with the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) which designated VIDE as a "high risk
grantee" under 34 CFR §80.12. Specifically related to assessment, the CA
identified the following requirement related to assessment reporting:
(1) all schools in VIDE are required develop school improvement plans
describing how schools will provide parents with individual student
academic assessment results, including interpretation of the results;
and (2) the Virgin Islands presently does not have mechanisms to
identify noncompliance regarding statewide assessment and reporting.

SEA staff reported that the Territory was in the process of developing a
standards-based accountability system and that in December 2004, the
Territory adopted a new assessment system called the U.S. Virgin Islands
Territorial Assessments of Learning (VITAL) [^6]. The accountability
system includes a standard instrument (VITAL-S), an alternate assessment
for students with severe cognitive disabilities (VITAL-A), and an
alternate assessment for English Language Learners (ELL) who are native
speakers of Spanish (VITAL-B). The VITAL-S is developed specifically to
align with the academic content standards and academic achievement
standards of VIDE. The implementation of the system will be phased in
the following manner for the 2004-05 to 2007-08 school years:

-   2004-05: reading and mathematics in grades 5, 7, and 11

-   2005-06: reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and 11

-   2006-07: reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and 11

-   2007-08: reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and 11and science in
    three grade spans (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12)

Staff reported that the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation
(PRE) is responsible for the administration of the Territory's
assessment system. Statewide testing was scheduled to take place in the
Virgin Islands March 14-18, 2005. Statewide alternate assessments were
scheduled to begin at the end of February 2005 and continue for
approximately four weeks. The VITAL-A and VITAL-B were to be implemented
within the same timeframe as the regular statewide assessment (VITAL-S).

OSEP learned that the total and subgroup non-participation rates
(related to the VITAL) would be reported on school, district, and state
report cards. The school and district report cards will report aggregate
assessment data (percent proficient in mathematics and reading), as well
as results disaggregated by subgroup (ELL, SWD, migrant, economically
disadvantaged). Beginning in 2004-05, participation rates will be based
on the enrollment at the time of the test and will be calculated for
each student subgroup. All public schools and districts will be held
accountable for reaching the 95% participation rate for each subgroup.
Staff reported that testing accommodations that preserve the reliability
and validity of the VITAL-S would be allowed with the intention that the
maximum number of students with disabilities can successfully
participate in the VITAL-S. VIDE has developed templates to produce
school, district, and state report cards but none have been issued to
date. Presently, the templates are being updated to include all the data
elements required under the NCLB Act. It is anticipated that report
cards to communicate the results of the VITAL will be produced and
field-tested in mid-2005. The reports will be published in English. In
addition, VIDE will explore options for facilitating access to the
reports in a variety of formats. VIDE must notify OSEP when scores from
the statewide assessments are publicly reported consistent with 34 CFR
§300.139 so that OSEP can verify compliance with those requirements.

Staff reported that when statewide or district-wide assessments take
place, a report of the administration, scoring, results and
interpretation are prepared by the Planning, Research and Evaluation
Division of VIDE in conjunction with the test publisher.

In its FFY 2002 APR, the SEA reported that both LEAs administered the
Iowa Test of Basic Skills as a district-wide assessment. VIDE did not
report that it ensured that children with disabilities were included in
the district-wide assessments with appropriate accommodations and
modifications, if necessary. VIDE reported that there was "no revised
and current policy for alternate assessment of students with
disabilities." In its March 2005 response to the FFY 2002 APR, OSEP
found that there was potential noncompliance with 34 CFR §300.138. OSEP
stated that it would conduct additional review of district-wide
assessments and of the proposed Territory-wide assessment during its
scheduled verification visit. During the verification visit, OSEP
learned that St. Thomas administered the test to grades 3-5-7-11 and St.
Croix administered it to grades 2-10. Results were provided to parents
of participating students. The SEA director confirmed that not all
students may have participated, there was no alternate to the test and
accommodations were not consistently provided. The Director also stated
that it is a district decision regarding the administration of
district-wide assessments (outside the Territorial assessment system).

In its March 2005 letter, OSEP required VIDE to report in the next APR
on whether it was out of compliance with the requirements of 34 CFR
§300.138 as related to Territory-wide and district-wide assessments. To
the extent that it was out of compliance, VIDE was to provide OSEP with
a plan to address the noncompliance. From record reviews and VIDE staff
interviews, OSEP found that VIDE is not in compliance with the
requirements at 34 CFR §§ 300.138-139 that require that VIDE demonstrate
that children with disabilities are included in general State and
district-wide assessment programs, with accommodations and modifications
in administration, if necessary and that the State shall make available
to the public, and report to the public and the Secretary with the same
frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of
children without disabilities. VIDE's FFY 2003 APR is currently under
review and will be responded to in a separate letter. OSEP's preliminary
review of the APR indicated that no plan was submitted. OSEP may address
this issue through Special Conditions attached to VIDE's FFY 2005 Grant
Award.

# Conclusion

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, VIDE must submit: (1) a plan
outlining the steps, including timelines, it is going to take to ensure
that it has a method for systematically monitoring all Part B
requirements and identifying and correcting all identified noncompliance
as required at 20 USC §§1412(a)(11) and 1232(b) and 34 CFR §300.600; (2)
documentation that all identified noncompliance identified in the Cycle
II monitoring report has been corrected; or in the event that it has
not, sanctions have been applied to the specific LEA(s); and (3)
documentation that the areas of weakness identified in the summer 2003
monitoring visits focused on extended school year and compensatory
services have been addressed.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, VIDE also must submit: (1) a
plan that outlines the steps VIDE will take to ensure that all
corrective actions ordered in state complaint decisions, mediation
agreements and due process hearings are implemented as directed at 34
CFR §§ 300.506-512 and 300.660-662 and that VIDE has a method for
tracking and monitoring the implementation of these corrective actions;
(2) a copy of its revised complaint, mediation and due process logs that
incorporate sufficient information to allow VIDE to determine the status
of correction at all times; and (3) a copy of the final due process
decision that was overdue at the time of the visit.

VIDE must monitor to ensure the provision of transportation for
compensatory services when necessary for the child to receive
compensatory services (34 CFR §300.24(b)(15). VIDE must submit a plan to
OSEP within 60 days of the date of this letter, including strategies,
proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines designed to ensure
correction of the noncompliance as soon as possible, not to exceed one
year from the date OSEP accepts the plan. No later than six months from
the date of this letter, the State must submit a Progress Report
including data and analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance and
provide a report to OSEP, with data and analysis demonstrating
compliance, as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following
one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan.

In addition, VIDE must: (1) no later than 30 days from the date of this
letter, provide OSEP with a plan for monitoring the requirements at 34
CFR §300.132(b) that an IEP or IFSP has been developed and is being
implemented for all children found eligible for Part B services, by
their third birthday; and (2) in the State Performance Plan (SPP) due
December 2, 2005, submit data and analysis demonstrating progress
towards full compliance and provide a final report to OSEP, with data
and analysis demonstrating full compliance, as soon as possible, but not
later than 30 days following the end of the one-year timeline.

##### 

The 2004 Special Conditions on VIDE's FFY 2004 Grant Award required
that, by April 30, 2005, VIDE correct the previously identified
noncompliance. At the time of OSEP's February 2005 visit, OSEP was able
to confirm that VIDE had demonstrated that it met the requirements for
the 2004 Special Conditions and no further action is required in the
following areas: (1) timeliness of evaluations (prior to October 1999);
(2) provision of special education and related services and adequate
supply of qualified personnel; (3) provision of transportation services
to ensure full school day attendance; (4) the availability of a
preschool continuum of placement options to ensure a free appropriate
public education; and (5) the revision of State complaint procedures,
Parents Rights Handbook and the VIPP.

VIDE must continue to report in order to demonstrate that it has met the
requirements of the remaining special conditions: (1) timeliness of
evaluations due after October 1999; (2) the provision of compensatory
education for all students who did not receive all the services set out
in their IEPs; and (3) ensuring that all eligible children transitioning
from Part C to Part B had timely IEPs/IFSPs and received special
education and related services by their third birthday, including those
eligible children who turned three during the summer months; by April
30, 2005 as required in the September 24, 2004 Grant Award letter.

[]{.mark}

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit and look forward to collaborating with the Virgin
Islands as you continue to work to improve results for children with
disabilities and their families.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/Troy R. Justesen
>
> Troy R. Justesen
>
> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Mrs. Carrie Johns

Acting Director of Special Education

[^1]: Because the term "State" under the Individuals with Disabilities
    Education Act includes the outlying area of the Virgin Islands, a
    United States Territory, the terms "State" "Territory" and "Outlying
    Area" will be used interchangeably.

[^2]: Documents reviewed as part of the verification process were not
    reviewed for legal sufficiency but rather to inform OSEP's
    understanding of the Territory's systems.

[^3]: The 2004 amendments to the IDEA took effect July 1, 2005 and VIDE
    will need to review and, if appropriate, revise its policies and
    procedures accordingly.

[^4]: As set out below, the statutory basis for this requirement has
    been removed.

[^5]: The Spot Check Plan was developed through the Compliance Agreement
    for the purpose of creating a mechanism by which the LEA and the SEA
    could monitor on a frequent basis whether or not students were
    receiving transportation services to enable a full day school day
    attendance.

[^6]: ^2^ Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
    amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, also includes a
    number of requirements related to including children with
    disabilities in State assessment programs and reporting on their
    participation and performance on regular and alternate assessments
    that in many instances are more specific than requirements in the
    IDEA. For example, the Title I regulations require, at 34 CFR
    §200.2(b)(3) and (4), that all State assessments must, "(3)(i) Be
    aligned with the State\'s challenging academic content and student
    academic achievement standards; and (ii) Provide coherent
    information about student attainment of those standards; (4)(i) Be
    valid and reliable for the purposes for which the assessment system
    is used; and (ii) Be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized
    professional and technical standards." This letter does not, and
    should not be interpreted to, address compliance by the Virgin
    Islands with requirements of Title I.