##### November 2, 2004

## Mr. Jack O\'Connell

Superintendent of Public Instruction

California Department of Education

1430 N Street, Suite 5602

Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Superintendent O\'Connell:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to California\'s March 31,
2004, submission of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002 Annual
Performance Report (APR) for the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) Part B funds used during the grant period July 1, 2002
through June 30, 2003. The APR reflects actual accomplishments made by
the State during the reporting period, compared to established
objectives. The APR for IDEA is designed to provide uniform reporting
from States and result in high-quality information across States.

The APR is a significant data source utilized in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) implemented by the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) within the U.S. Department
of Education. The APR falls within the third component of OSEP\'s
four-part accountability strategy (i.e., supporting States in assessing
their performance and compliance, and in planning, implementing, and
evaluating improvement strategies) and consolidates the self-assessing
and improvement planning functions of the CIFMS into one document.
OSEP\'s Memorandum regarding the submission of Part B APRs directed
States to address five cluster areas: General Supervision; Early
Childhood Transition; Parent Involvement; Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment; and Secondary
Transition.

# *Background*

OSEP\'s 1992 and 1996 Monitoring Reports both identified noncompliance
related to timeliness of: (1) correction of identified noncompliance;
(2) complaint decisions; and (3) due process hearing decisions. In June
1998, OSEP conducted a targeted follow-up monitoring review. In its
April 6, 1999 Monitoring Report, OSEP again included findings showing
the California Department of Education's (CDE's) continuing longstanding
failure to meet its general supervision responsibility under
§300.600(a). OSEP found that CDE lacked effective complaint and
monitoring procedures and could not ensure that, once identified, public
agencies corrected noncompliance in a timely manner. On December 21,
1999, CDE submitted to OSEP a comprehensive corrective action plan with
specific steps and timelines. In the State\'s FFY 1999 Part B Grant
Award letter, OSEP designated CDE a high-risk grantee, and imposed
Special Conditions relating to the timely resolution of all Part B
formal written complaints.[^1] The State\'s FFY 2000 and FFY 2001 Part B
Grant Awards included Special Conditions related to the State\'s
procedures for identifying and correcting noncompliance. As a result of
OSEP\'s visit to California in May 2002 and documentation submitted as a
requirement of the Special Conditions, OSEP concluded that the State had
substantially met the 2001 Special Conditions (i.e., all of the
conditions except the condition relating to the provision of FAPE to
youth with disabilities in adult prisons). Therefore, the FFY 2002 Grant
Award did not include Special Conditions, except for those regarding
youth with disabilities in adult prisons.

The State\'s APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data and should document data-based determinations regarding
performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas (as well as any
other areas identified by the State to ensure improvement). OSEP\'s
comments are listed by cluster area.

# *General Supervision*

As indicated in the Background section of this letter, OSEP previously
identified noncompliance in three areas of this cluster, related to the
timeliness of: (1) correction of identified noncompliance; (2) complaint
decisions; and (3) due process hearing decisions. California carried out
activities to correct this noncompliance.

***Timely Correction of Identified Noncompliance.*** CDE must: (1)
ensure that each educational program for children with disabilities
administered within the State meets CDE\'s standards, including the
requirements of Part B (34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii)); and (2) implement
proper methods of monitoring to identify and correct noncompliance in a
timely manner (within one-year of identification) (20 U.S.C. 1232d). On
page 2 of this cluster of the APR, the State: (1) indicated that, of the
262 districts reviewed in 2002-2003 through the verification and special
education self-review processes, 203 corrected identified deficiencies
within the timeline identified by CDE; and (2) set forth a target that
90 percent of districts would resolve identified noncompliance in a
timely manner. OSEP could not determine from the APR: (1) the number of
districts that did not correct noncompliance within one-year from
identification; or (2) whether the 90 percent target set by the State
refers to correction of noncompliance within one-year from
identification, or some shorter period set by the State. In the next
APR, the State must: (1) indicate the extent to which it is meeting its
responsibility to ensure that noncompliance is corrected as soon as
possible, but no later than one year from identification (including the
districts reviewed during 2003-2004, and the 59 districts reviewed
during 2002-2003 that did not, as reported in the FFY 2002 APR, complete
correction within the timeline identified by CDE); and (2) ensure that
any targets are consistent with the State's responsibility to ensure
that all noncompliance that it identifies is corrected within one-year
from identification.

Further, CDE indicated on page 5 of this cluster of the APR, that it had
insufficient numbers of personnel to conduct monitoring and compliance
activities. In the next APR, CDE must provide information indicating how
it will ensure timely correction of identified noncompliance,
notwithstanding the insufficient numbers of personnel referred to in the
APR.

In addition, Probe GS.II in this cluster asks States to determine
whether systemic issues are identified through analysis of findings from
information and data collected from all available sources, including
monitoring, complaint investigations, and hearing resolutions. The
September 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report "Numbers of
Formal Disputes are Generally Low and States are Using Mediation and
Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts,"[^2] identifies California as
having high numbers of requests for due process hearings, based on data
from 2000. CDE reported on page 2 of this cluster that currently, all
monitoring processes require review of multiple data sources for
development of a monitoring plan. This includes district data, parent
concerns, and district compliance history (including complaints and
hearings). However, the FFY 2002 APR does not include an analysis of
hearing requests by issue or locality and does not indicate that CDE
analyzes hearing requests across districts to identify systemic issues.
CDE should examine whether there are certain districts with
concentrations of requests and if there are certain issues for which
hearings are most frequently requested across districts. We encourage
CDE to use the FFY 2003 APR to address this matter and to identify
appropriate strategies to address the results of its analysis.

***Timely Complaint Decisions.*** The Part B regulations require that
CDE issue its written decisions on each Part B formal written complaint
within 60 calendar days from its receipt of the complaint, unless CDE
extends the timeline due to exceptional circumstances that exist with
regard to a particular complaint (34 CFR §300.661(a) and (b)(i)). Under
Probe GS.II page 2, the State reported that: (1) 93.6 percent of
complaint reports were completed in a timely manner in 2002-2003; (2)
timely completion of complaint investigation reports was once the
subject of Special Conditions on the State\'s Part B Grant Awards; and
(3) timeliness of complaint decisions was a long-standing priority
issue. In the FFY 2002 APR, CDE reported that it would continue to
maintain its target of at least a 90 percent rate of timely completion
of complaint decisions. In the FFY 2003 APR, the State must revise its
projected target to be 100 percent to ensure resolution of all Part B
complaints within the timelines required by 34 CFR §300.661(a) and
(b)(i), including specifying future activities to achieve this projected
target, and to continue to report in the FFY 2003 APR its progress in
ensuring full compliance with this requirement. Although the State
indicated that it identified systemic issues as a result of its review
of complaint decisions, it did not specify how it analyzed these
findings across districts. OSEP suggests that the State maintain these
data and include an analysis in its FFY 2003 APR. Further, as noted
above, CDE indicated on page 5 of this cluster of the APR, that it had
insufficient numbers of personnel to conduct monitoring and compliance
activities. In the next APR, CDE must provide information indicating how
it will meet its responsibilities related to the timely resolution of
complaints, notwithstanding the insufficient numbers of personnel
referred to in the APR.

***Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions.*** The Part B regulations
require that the final decision in a due process hearing be reached and
a copy mailed to the parties not later than 45 days after the receipt of
a request for a hearing and that a hearing officer may grant specific
extensions of time beyond that period at the request of either party (34
CFR §300.511(a) and (c)). The data in Attachment 1 of the APR showed
that the decisions in 42 of 156 hearings were not issued within the
timelines required by 34 CFR §300.511(a) and (c). The State did not
include strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines
that would ensure correction of the noncompliance within a reasonable
period of time, not to exceed one year from the date of OSEP\'s
acceptance of the proposed strategies. Therefore, the State must submit
a plan to OSEP within 60 days of the date of this letter that includes
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines designed
to ensure correction of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed one year from the date OSEP approves the plan. In
the FFY 2003 APR, the State must include 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 the end of the one-year timeline.

***Sufficient Supply of Personnel to Meet Needs of All Children with
Disabilities.*** Probe GS.IV asks CDE to report on whether there are
sufficient numbers of administrators, teachers, related services
providers, paraprofessionals, and other providers to meet the identified
educational needs of all children with disabilities. On page 2 of this
cluster, CDE reported the following percentages of full-time equivalent
(FTE) special education staff that were fully certified: (1) 74.4
percent in 2000-2001; (2) 73.9 percent in 2001-2002; and (3) 75.5
percent in 2002-2003. On page 5 of this cluster, the State reported that
the "Special Education Division (SED) has neither the authority nor the
responsibility to address issues specific to teacher certification." CDE
indicated that agencies such as the Commission on Teacher Credentialing
(CTC) and postsecondary institutions are assigned this responsibility.
CDE also indicated that it would work collaboratively with other State
agencies to support an increase in certified special education
personnel. OSEP looks forward to reviewing, in the next APR, a
description of specific activities to improve performance and data and
analysis regarding the impact of the State's improvement efforts.

***Collection and Reporting of Accurate and Timely Data.*** CDE reported
in Probe GS.V on page 2 that 98 percent of Special Education Local Plan
Areas (SELPAs) submitted accurate data to CDE in a timely manner in
2002-2003. The State included a projected target, strategies, and
activities to ensure the accuracy and timeliness of reporting data from
all SELPAs, as required by section 618 of IDEA.

# *Early Childhood Transition* 

On page 1 of this cluster of the APR, CDE reported that, based on the
data available, 4,474 of 11,680 three-year-olds (38 percent) entered the
preschool program before their third birthday, and the remaining 62
percent either had their individualized education program (IEP) meetings
on time or entered the preschool program after their third birthday.
While CDE had no established targets for its FFY 2002 APR, it had
established a target of 45 percent of children who will enter the Part B
program before their third birthday for its FFY 2003 APR. CDE also
indicated on page 1 of this cluster, that data are not available to
determine how many children served in Part B preschool programs were
previously served through Part C, but that it will be meeting with the
California Department of Developmental Services, the Lead Agency for
Part C, to establish an ongoing mechanism for data sharing to determine
which children served in the Part B preschool program previously
received services under Part C.

OSEP cannot determine whether CDE ensures that all children
participating in the Part B preschool program have an IEP or an
individualized family service plan (IFSP) developed and implemented by
their third birthday, in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.121(c) and
300.132(b), and whether evaluations and eligibility determinations for
children not previously served under Part C are conducted in a timely
manner. Therefore, in the FFY 2003 APR, CDE must include data and
analysis to demonstrate that all Part B eligible children, including
those participating in the Part C program, have an IEP or IFSP developed
and implemented by their third birthday, in accordance with 34 CFR
§§300.121(c) and 300.132(b). CDE also indicated that it identified
activities for the FFY 2003 APR to increase awareness of the Part B
preschool program and local education agencies' (LEAs') obligations to
eligible children. In the FFY 2003 APR, OSEP will look for information
to show that CDE is measuring its compliance in the areas outlined above
and reporting on its progress with identified strategies, evidence of
proposed change, and activities designed to achieve compliance in this
area.

OSEP assumes that any Part C to Part B tracking system that California
develops will not involve the disclosure of personally identifiable
information from student's education records or, if it will, that it is
consistent with the IDEA and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA). OSEP has enclosed, for your information, a copy of its February
11, 2004 letter to Mary Elder, which discusses the limited disclosure of
personally identifiable information for purposes of meeting IDEA's child
find mandate.

# *Parent Involvement*

On page 1 of this cluster, CDE reported data demonstrating that the
following number of parents accessed services from the Family
Empowerment Center (FEC): 7,847 in 2000-2001; 7,204 in 2001-2002; and
9,969 in 2002-2003. In addition, the State reported that 8,321 parents
utilized CDE's Procedural Safeguards Referral Service (PSRS) Help Line
in 2002- 2003. CDE reported on page 2, that improving parent involvement
has been an ongoing priority for CDE, and the State included strategies
to increase parent involvement through the use of a parent webpage and
the inclusion of the FEC parents on the State\'s listserv. Although CDE
could not assess its progress or slippage in this area because it did
not establish a target for this APR period, it has established a target
and projected several activities for the FFY 2003 APR. CDE must report
on its progress in these areas in the next APR.

*Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
(FAPE in the LRE)*

***Disproportionality.*** In Probe BF.I on page 5 of this cluster, CDE
reported that African-American children were overrepresented and Asian
or Pacific Islander children were underrepresented in special education
in the State-wide disproportionality calculation. CDE also reported that
African-American children were overrepresented in six disability
categories, Asian or Pacific Islander children were underrepresented in
seven disability categories, and Hispanic children were underrepresented
in three disability categories. The State reported that African-American
students are overrepresented in all three of the educational
environments assessed, Asian-American students are underrepresented, and
white students are overrepresented in the least restrictive environment
outside regular class 0-20 percent. CDE reported on page 6 of this
cluster that, on average, California\'s 2002-2003 data for disability
category and educational environment by ethnicity were similar to
national data for 2000-2001. CDE included strategies and activities to
address these patterns.

The Part B regulation at 34 CFR §300.755 requires States that identify
significant disproportionality on the basis of race in the
identification of children with disabilities (including identification
within particular categories of disability), or in placements into
particular settings, to provide for the review and, if appropriate,
revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in
identification or placement to ensure that they comply with Part B.
California\'s FFY 2003 APR must include the results of the State\'s
review of the policies, procedures, and practices used in the State in
the identification and placement of children with disabilities to ensure
that they are consistent with the Part B requirements of 34 CFR
§300.755. If the 2003 APR does not include information indicating that
the State, when it identifies significant disproportionality, has either
conducted a review of policies, procedures, and practices used in
identification or placement of children with disabilities or otherwise
ensured that such a review was done, OSEP will conclude that the State
is not complying with the regulation.

***Drop-out and Graduation Rates.*** In Probe BF.II on page 2 of this
cluster, CDE reported data that demonstrated a downward trend in the
dropout rates for children with disabilities, from 4.1 percent in
2000-2001, to 4.0 percent in 2001-2002, to 3.5 percent in 2002-2003. CDE
also indicated an increase in the percent of children with disabilities
exiting with high school diplomas from 51.6 percent in 2000-2001 to 58.8
percent in 2001-2002 with the rate remaining relatively unchanged at
58.7 percent for 2002-2003. CDE reported that it was unable to compare
the drop-out and graduation rates for children with disabilities with
the rates for children without disabilities because the calculations
used for the two groups were different. CDE also reported that districts
within the lowest quartile among a group of districts similar in size
and type on measures of graduation and dropout are identified in the
first stage of the process of selecting districts for verification under
CDE's Quality Assurance Process (QAP). CDE did not have an established
target for drop-out reduction for the 2002 APR reporting period, so it
could not assess its progress or slippage in this area. For the FFY 2003
APR reporting period, CDE has established a target of 58.9 percent for
graduation and maintaining a dropout rate below 4.0 percent.

***Suspension and Expulsion.*** Under Probe BF.II on page 3 of this
cluster, CDE reported that the expulsion rate for children with
disabilities improved over the last three years and was consistently
below the rate for children without disabilities. In addition, the State
reported that the suspension rate for children with disabilities for
2002-2003 was low (at 0.70 percent), but that comparisons could not be
conducted because there was no equivalent figure for long-term
suspension rates for nondisabled children or across agencies. 34 CFR
§300.146 requires that States examine data to determine if significant
discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and
expulsions of children with disabilities either among LEAs in the State
or compared to the rates for nondisabled children within the agencies.
Where the State determines that significant discrepancies are occurring,
it must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected
State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
behavioral interventions, and procedural safeguards to ensure that the
policies, procedures, and practices comply with Part B.

The instructions to the FFY 2002 APR direct States to describe which of
these comparisons it did, as well as the method the State used to
determine possible discrepancies, what constitutes a discrepancy, the
number of agencies with significant discrepancies, and, if significant
discrepancies are occurring, a description of those discrepancies and
how the State plans to address them. The State's FFY 2002 APR did not,
however, include any information indicating that the State had examined
data from the LEAs it used in assembling the State level data to
determine whether significant discrepancies were occurring in the LEAs
based on either one of the comparisons described above. In the FFY 2003
APR, the State must include the information required by the
instructions. If the FFY 2003 APR does not include information
indicating that the State has examined all data for all LEAs to
determine whether significant discrepancies are occurring in the LEAs
based on either one of the comparisons described above, and that when
the State identifies significant discrepancies it reviews and, if
appropriate, revises (or requires the affected State agency or LEA to
revise) its policies, procedures and practices consistent with 34 CFR
§300.146, then OSEP will conclude that the State is not complying with
the regulation.

***Participation of Children with Disabilities on State- and
District-wide Assessments.*** Under Probe BF.IV on page 4 of this
cluster, California reported that the participation rate for children
with disabilities in the English language arts and mathematics
assessment increased from 86.3 percent in 2001-2002 to 94.9 percent
(English language arts) and 94.2 percent (mathematics) in 2002-2003. CDE
reported that the State made significant progress in the participation
rates of children with disabilities on the standards-based State-wide
assessments, and the improvements may be attributed to the
implementation of a new alternate assessment, improved data collection
methods, additional training regarding the use of accommodations and
modifications, and the revision in State law that required children with
disabilities to participate in the Standardized Testing and Reporting
(STAR) program.

***Performance of Children with Disabilities on State- and District-wide
Assessments.*** Under Probe BF.IV on page 4 of this cluster, California
reported that in 2001-2002, 9.7 percent of children with disabilities
were proficient or above in English language arts and 12.1 percent were
proficient or above in mathematics. In 2002-2003, 13.9 percent of
children with disabilities were proficient or above in English language
arts and 16.1 percent were proficient or above in mathematics. CDE
reported that the State made significant progress in the performance
rates of children with disabilities on the standards-based State-wide
assessments, and the improvements may be attributed to the
implementation of a new alternate assessment, improved data collection
methods, additional training regarding the use of accommodations and
modifications, the transition by California's Special Education Division
from a norm-referenced to a standards-based measure of student outcomes
to be implemented in 2003-04, and the revision in State law that
required children with disabilities to participate in the STAR program.
On page 8 of this cluster, CDE described the strategies that it
implemented to improve participation and performance on assessments.
OSEP looks forward to receiving data and analysis on the implementation
of these strategies in the next APR.

***Education Environments for Children with Disabilities.*** Under Probe
BF.V on page 4, CDE reported that it provided baseline/trend data in
Attachment 2 of the FAPE section. In addition, as noted above in the
disproportionality section, CDE reported that: (1) on average,
California\'s 2002-2003 data for disability category and educational
environment by ethnicity were similar to national patterns for
2000-2001; and (2) it is not clear why these patterns exist, but CDE is
engaged in activities to address them. CDE also reported on page 6 that
"Establishing a target for LRE is a complex task," but "SED is working
with the Key Performance Indicator Stakeholder Group and other CDE
divisions to define benchmarks and establish targets." One of the future
activities identified is that CDE's Special Education Division will
conduct research and analyze data relative to LRE, and that LRE data
will continue to be used in monitoring districts. In the FFY 2003 APR,
CDE must include targets and future activities to improve performance in
this area.

***Performance of preschool children with disabilities on* *early
language/communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional skills.***
Under Probe BF.VI on page 4 of this cluster, CDE reported that it
tracked placement of a cohort of three- and four-year-old children with
disabilities in elementary school programs in 2000-2001 and 2002-2003.
In addition, the State reported data that 6,878 out of 24,868
preschoolers who were matched over three years exited special education
to regular education by June 2003, and an additional 9,961 were removed
from regular education classes to receive special education 20 percent
or less of the time. CDE further reported that it would complete testing
of the Desired Results Developmental Profile in order to begin
collecting information about the extent to which preschool age children
with disabilities are developing in relationship to established
standards for all young children served by the State. In the FFY 2003
APR, CDE must report on its plan to collect the data mentioned above
regarding the outcomes for preschool children with disabilities,
including a detailed timeline of the activities necessary to implement
that plan and, if available, documentation of data (whether collected
through sampling, monitoring, individual IEP review, or other methods
mentioned above), projected targets for improved performance, and
activities to achieve its projected targets for this area.

# *Secondary Transition*

On page 2 of this cluster, CDE presented survey data indicating that in
2002-2003, for parents and/or children responding to the survey: (1)
90.6 percent of former Workability I[^3] parents or children responding
to this item on the survey indicated that they were satisfied with the
secondary transition services provided; (2) of the 12,003 children or
parents who answered this item on the survey, 64.8 percent of former
Workability I children were employed; (3) of the 9,658 parents or
children who answered, 71.3 percent of former Workability I children
were attending postsecondary institutions; and (4) of the 11,622 parents
or children who answered, 11.2 percent of former Workability I children
were living independently. CDE noted that, "these data only include
those people who returned a follow-up survey, and represent a sample
from the entire Workability population."

CDE did not establish targets for 2002-03, but did include targets for
the first three areas mentioned above for FFY 2004 and stated that it
would continue to explore the "complex" issue of children with
disabilities living independently. The State also identified strategies
and activities to develop and improve programs and services to assist
children with disabilities in their transition to the workforce,
independent living, or post-secondary schooling. In the FFY 2003 APR,
OSEP looks forward to CDE's report of its continued progress in this
area.

# *Conclusion*

The State 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, within a reasonable period of time not to
exceed one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan, correction of the
noncompliance identified in the General Supervision section of this
letter related to the timeliness of due process hearing decisions. In
the FFY 2003 APR, the State must include data and analysis demonstrating
progress toward compliance in this area, and provide a report to OSEP
with data and analysis demonstrating compliance as soon as possible, but
not later than 30 days following the end of the one-year timeline.

Also, in the next APR, the State must: (1) indicate the extent to which
it is meeting its responsibility to ensure that noncompliance is
corrected as soon as possible, but no later than one year from
identification (including the districts reviewed during 2003-2004, and
the 59 districts reviewed during 2002-2003 that did not, as reported in
the FFY 2002 APR, complete correction within the timeline identified by
CDE); and (2) ensure that any targets are consistent with the State's
responsibility to ensure that all noncompliance that it identifies is
corrected within one-year from identification.

Further, the State must revise its projected target to resolve all Part
B complaints within the timelines required by 34 CFR §300.661(a) and
(b)(1), and continue to report in the FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005,
on its progress in ensuring full compliance with these requirements. In
addition, the State must report in the FFY 2003 APR on its progress in
ensuring that systemic issues are identified through analysis of
findings from information and data collected from all available sources,
including monitoring, complaint investigations, and hearing resolutions,
and must provide an analysis of systemic issues identified across
districts. CDE must also, in its FFY 2003 APR, include information
indicating how it will ensure, timely correction of identified
noncompliance, notwithstanding the shortages of personnel to conduct
monitoring and compliance activities referred to in this APR.

In addition, OSEP could not determine from data and information in the
FFY 2002 APR whether: (1) all eligible children participating in the
preschool program assisted under Part B, including those children who
participated in the Part C program, have an IEP or IFSP developed and
implemented by their third birthday; (2) in light of California's
determination of projected significant disproportionality based on race
in the identification and placement of children, the State conducted a
review and, if appropriate, required revision of the policies,
procedures, and practices used in identification or placement to ensure
that they comply with Part B; and (3) the State conducted comparisons in
the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with
disabilities with rates for nondisabled children and among LEAs in the
State. In its FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005, the State must include:

1.  Data and analysis to demonstrate that all Part B eligible children,
    including those participating in the Part C program, have an IEP or
    IFSP developed and implemented by their third birthday, in
    accordance with 34 CFR §§300.121(c) and 300.132(b);

2.  A report based on a review of the policies, procedures, and
    practices used in the State in the identification and placement of
    children with disabilities to ensure that they are consistent with
    the Part B requirements of 34 CFR §300.755; and

3.  A report on the requested information regarding suspensions and
    expulsions consistent with the Part B requirements of 34 CFR
    §300.146.

Finally, in the FFY 2003 APR, CDE must report on the data regarding the
outcomes for preschool children with disabilities, including a detailed
timeline of the activities necessary to implement its plan and, if
available, documentation of data (whether collected through sampling,
monitoring, individual IEP review, or other methods mentioned in this
cluster), projected targets for improved performance, and activities to
achieve its projected targets for this area.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State, and we look forward to collaborating
with you as you continue to improve results for children and youth with
disabilities and their families. If you have any concerns or questions,
please contact Perry Williams at (202) 245-7575.

> Sincerely,

#### /s/Patricia J. Guard for

> Stephanie Smith Lee
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Alice D. Parker

[^1]: Beginning in FFY 1997, each of the State\'s Part B Grant Awards
    has included special conditions related to the State\'s failure to
    make a free appropriate public education (FAPE) available to
    eligible youth with disabilities in adult prisons. Since June 5,
    1997, the California Department of Prisons (rather than CDE) has,
    pursuant to 34 CFR §300.600(d), been responsible for general
    supervision of special education programs for eligible youth with
    disabilities who were convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult
    prisons.

[^2]: The report is available at
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03897.pdf.

[^3]: The Workability I program provides comprehensive pre-employment
    training, employment placement and follow-up for high school
    students in special education, who are making the transition from
    school to work, independent living and post-secondary education or
    training.