November 22, 2006

Honorable Suellen K. Reed

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Indiana Department of Education\
State House, Room 229

200 West Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2798

Dear Dr. Reed:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the Office
of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) recent verification visit to
Indiana. As indicated in OSEP's letter to you of April 13, 2006, OSEP is
conducting verification visits to a number of States 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 (IDEA), as amended in
2004. OSEP conducted the Part B visit to Indiana during the week of
August 14, 2006.

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 purposes of the verification
visits are 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 Indiana Department of Education
(IDE), OSEP staff met with Dr. Robert Marra, Associate Superintendent of
Exceptional Children, Division of Special Education, and members of
IDE's staff who are responsible for: (1) the oversight of general
supervision activities (including monitoring, mediation, complaint
resolution, and impartial due process hearings); (2) the collection and
analysis of State-reported data; and (3) ensuring participation in, and
the reporting of student performance on statewide assessments. Prior to
and during the visit, OSEP staff reviewed a number of documents[^1],
including but not limited to the following: (1) Indiana's State
Performance Plan (SPP); (2) the State's Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2003
Annual Performance Report (APR); (3) Indiana's Mediation and Due
Process, Hearing and Complaint Logs; (4) information on IDE's website
regarding the statewide assessment system; and (5) other documents. In
addition, OSEP conducted a conference call on June 2, 2006, with members
of Indiana's State Advisory Council on the Education of Children with
Disabilities (Advisory Council), to hear their perspectives on the
strengths and weaknesses of the State's systems for general supervision,
data collection and reporting, and statewide assessment. Dr. Marra and
IDE staff also participated in the call and assisted OSEP by inviting
the participants.

The information that Dr. Marra and other IDE staff provided prior to and
during the OSEP visit, together with all of the information that OSEP
staff reviewed in preparation for the visit, greatly enhanced our
understanding of IDE's systems for general supervision, data collection
and reporting, and statewide assessment.

# [General Supervision]{.underline} 

In looking at 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.,
618 State-reported data, due process hearings, complaints, mediation,
large-scale assessments, previous monitoring results, etc.) to identify
systemic issues and problems.

Structure of the State School System

The State is divided into 292 school corporations (districts), 30
charter schools, and the Indiana School for the Deaf, Indiana School for
the Blind and the Department of Correction. These are organized into 72
special education planning districts.

Identification of Noncompliance

IDE has three staff assigned full-time to special education monitoring,
each of which is assigned to approximately 24 special planning districts
and the school corporations that they include. Other employees in the
Division are available for specific monitoring assignments, on-site
activities, data analyses and processing.

IDE informed OSEP that, since the 1999-2000 school year, it has
implemented monitoring procedures patterned after OSEP's Continuous
Improvement Focused Monitoring system (CIFMS), and since that time it
has continued narrowing its monitoring indicators (from an initial 182
indicators to the current 26 indicators).

Using the 26 indicators in its Continuous Improvement Monitoring (CIM),
the State conducts an annual monitoring assessment of all school
corporations, special education planning districts, the Indiana School
for the Deaf, Indiana School for the Blind and the Department of
Correction. The CIM indicators include eight compliance indicators: (1)
evaluations and case conferences (individualized education program (IEP)
meetings) are conducted within 60 instructional days; (2) a free
appropriate public education (FAPE) is provided to students placed
out-of-district; (3) all behavior improvement plans are based on a
functional behavioral assessment; (4) services continue to all students
with disabilities during periods of expulsion; (5) FAPE is provided to
incarcerated youth; (6) students ages 14 and older are invited to
transition conferences; (7) all students transitioning from Part C to
Part B have individulaized education plans (IEPs) in place by their
3^rd^ birthdays; and (8) school representatives attend all Part C to B
transition conferences. IDE requires 100 percent compliance for all of
these compliance indicators. The remaining 18 indicators are performance
indicators, including parent involvement and graduation rate.

As a part of the CIM process, IDE "front-loads" much of the data for
school corporations and sends these data to them. The school corporation
must conduct file reviews, in addition to using the data to determine
its performance on the indicators (both compliance and performance).
This past year, file reviews were required for compliance with
requirements related to: (1) provision of FAPE to students placed
out-of-district; (2) behavior improvement plans based on a functional
behavioral assessment; (3) provision of FAPE to incarcerated youth; and
(4) secondary transition. In addition, IDE conducts file reviews related
to specific issues. For example, IDE did an extensive file review
related to properly documented decisions to include students in
alternate assessments. IDE also reported that it uses data from
complaints and hearings to "triangulate" the accuracy of the data that
it receives from school corporations in their CIMs.

IDE's general supervision system also includes a parent satisfaction
survey, which includes items related to the eight compliance indicators
and other satisfaction issues. In 2006, surveys were sent to 5000
parents, and 1100 parents responded. At the time of the verification
visit, the State had not yet determined how it will use data from the
surveys in identifying noncompliance.

School corporations are required, as part of their CIM submissions to
the State, to include improvement plans for any indicator (compliance
and performance), on which their data do not meet the target. IDE
monitoring staff review each corporation's submission to determine
whether the corporation has provided all required information, and to
determine whether the corporation has included an approvable improvement
plan for each indicator for which it did not meet the target. IDE may
decide to conduct an on-site monitoring review based on the school
corporation's improvement plan or evidence of insufficient progress made
toward correction of noncompliance.

IDE provided evidence that its general supervision system is a
reasonable approach to identifying noncompliance with Part B
requirements related to the eight compliance indicators in the CIM
process. The State's documentation showed that the State has, through
the CIM process (which, as described above, is largely a self-review
process that is data-driven), identified noncompliance in many school
corporations and special education planning districts. IDE explained to
OSEP that it believes it can identify noncompliance with other Part B
requirements through its complaint and due process procedures and
through the extensive telephone calls and non-complaint correspondence
that it receives from parents and advocates. Without collecting data at
the local level, OSEP cannot determine whether the State is effective in
identifying noncompliance with Part B requirements other than those
included in the State's eight CIM compliance indicators.

**Timely** **Correction of Noncompliance.**  The State has not met its
responsibility to ensure that noncompliance is corrected within one year
of its identification pursuant to 34 CFR §300.600 (in effect at the time
of OSEP's visit)[^2] and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E).

As explained above, each school corporation must include, as part of its
CIM submission, its plan for correction regarding any compliance
indicator for which the corporation did not meet the 100% compliance
target, and IDE must approve these plans. In all cases, the plans must
provide for correction no later than one year from identification. Based
on the data submitted with the next year's CIM, IDE will determine
whether the noncompliance has been corrected.

In its SPP submitted to OSEP on December 2, 2005, IDE reported that it
had identified noncompliance in 73 special education planning districts
through its CIM and ensured correction of the noncompliance in all 73
planning districts within one year. (The State did not provide data in
the SPP regarding the percentage of monitoring ***findings*** that were
corrected within one year.) During the verification visit, IDE explained
that it requires noncompliance to be corrected as soon as possible and
no later than one year from identification. IDE further clarified,
however, that it considered noncompliance to be corrected, in reporting
in the SPP, if a planning district or school corporation made sufficient
progress toward compliance, whether or not it fully corrected the
noncompliance. IDE acknowledged that there were districts and school
corporations that did not correct all noncompliance within one year.

OSEP requested that IDE provide more detailed information regarding the
status of correction of identified noncompliance. Following the
verification visit, IDE provided a chart that showed, for each of the
eight compliance indicators in the CIM, the level of compliance for
2003, 2004, and 2005. That chart showed a number of planning districts
and school corporations with noncompliance that persisted from 2003
through 2004 and 2005. For example, for compliance with the requirement
for timely initial evaluations: (1) one school corporation had 72%
compliance in 2003, 51% compliance in 2004, and 51% compliance in 2005;
(2) another had 58% compliance in 2003, 68% compliance in 2004, and 60%
compliance in 2005; and (3) a third had 73% compliance in 2003, 58%
compliance in 2004, and 62% compliance in 2005. A number of other school
corporations also had data demonstrating persistent noncompliance with
the requirement for timely evaluation and with other compliance
indicators. In a conference call on September 25, 2006 IDE agreed that
the data chart showed that some planning districts and school
corporations had noncompliance that persisted from 2003. IDE explained
that it had required planning divisions and school corporations to
revise improvement plans where there was no correction, but that it had
not used withholding of funds or other sanctions with entities that had
persistent noncompliance from 2003. With its FFY 2005 APR, due February
1, 2007, the State must submit to OSEP either: (1) documentation that
IDE is implementing effective procedures for ensuring the timely
correction of noncompliance, including being able to demonstrate that
each special education planning district has corrected noncompliance
identified more than one year previously; or (2) the State's plan for
correcting and demonstrating, within one year from the date on which
OSEP accepts the plan, that IDE is effectively ensuring correction of
noncompliance within the one-year timeline. Additionally, as part of its
response to Indicator 15 in its FFY 2005 APR, the State must, consistent
with the instructions for the APR, provide data regarding its
effectiveness in correcting noncompliance that it identified during the
2004-2005 reporting period.

Mediation

IDE staff reported that if an issue arises during the Case Conference
Committee that cannot be resolved, an avenue for resolution is
mediation. Further, in choosing to mediate, both the parent and the
school must agree to participate in the mediation process, and then, if
the matter cannot be resolved, a due process hearing may be requested.
IDE informed OSEP that when it receives a mediation request, it assigns
a trained mediator. The mediator contacts the involved parties and
conducts the mediation sessions. Additionally, if the process is
successful in reaching an agreement, the parties will execute a
mediation agreement that sets forth that resolution. On page 91 of the
SPP (Indicator #19), that State indicates that the \"\[t\]he mediator
contacts the involved parties and conducts the mediation sessions.
Additionally, if the process is successful in reaching an agreement, the
mediation agreement will include findings and decisions of the
mediator.\" Thus it appears that the State has established mediation
procedures that are inconsistent with the IDEA. In a follow-up call on
November 13, 2006, the State clarified that the SPP language that
mediators make findings and decisions is an error and will be deleted.
As part of its response to Indicator 19 in the APR due February 1, 2007,
the State must correct this error.

IDE reported that in 2005, 66% of its mediation requests resulted in
mediation agreements. Further, IDE reported that of the 45 total
mediation requests in 2005, 10 were either not held or are pending and
of the 35 remaining mediation requests, 23 went to mediation. IDE
indicated that the State does not enforce mediation agreements, but that
such agreements are legally binding and enforceable in civil actions in
a court of competent jurisdiction.

Impartial Due Process Hearings and Reviews

In the SPP, the State reported a 92% compliance rate with the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.511(a) and (c) (in effect when the State
submitted the SPP and at the time of OSEP's verification visit)[^3],
that: (1) a final decision is reached in the hearing and a copy of the
decision is mailed to each of the parties within 45 days of the receipt
of a request for a hearing; and (2) a hearing officer may grant specific
extensions of time beyond 45 days at the request of either party. In its
March 2, 2006 response to the SPP, OSEP noted that while this level of
compliance was below 100% and required improvement activities to achieve
full compliance, OSEP recognized the effort made by the State in
achieving a high level of compliance. OSEP further stated that it looked
forward to reviewing data in the APR, due February 1, 2007, that
demonstrated full compliance with this requirement.

On August 8, 2006, IDE submitted to OSEP a log showing that, of the
seven fully adjudicated hearings between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006:
(1) the decision in one (an expedited hearing) was issued within the
timeline; and (2) the decisions in the other six were issued within an
extended timeline. OSEP confirmed, through interview and review of
hearing files, that these extensions were at the request of a party and
for a specific period of time.

As required by 34 CFR §300.511(b) and (c) of the regulations in effect
at the time of OSEP's verification visit,[^4] the State Educational
Agency must ensure that the final decision in a review is reached and
mailed within 30 days of the receipt of a request for review, unless the
reviewing official grants a specific extension of that timeline at the
request of either party. As indicated in the State's log and discussed
with the State during the verification visit, the State issued four
review decisions in 2005 and 2006. Each decision was issued within an
appropriately extended timeline.

**Complaints**

The Part B regulations in effect at the time of OSEP's visit required
that IDE issue its written decisions on each Part B complaint within 60
days of receipt, unless the timeline is extended due to exceptional
circumstances with regard to a particular complaint.[^5] See 34 CFR
§300.661(a) and (b)(1).[^6] In the SPP, the State indicated that: (1) it
issued decisions for 104 complaints during the 2004-2005 reporting
period; (2) 93 of those decisions were issued within 60 days from
receipt; and (3) the remaining 11 were issued beyond 60 days but with
extended timelines. IDE's complaint log showed that, for the 76
complaints received between July 1, 2005 and May 31, 2006: (1) nine were
withdrawn or resolved prior to issuance of a decision; (2) the decisions
for 64 were issued within 60 calendar days from receipt; (3) the
decisions for an additional two were issued beyond 60 days, but with
documented extensions; and (4) the decision for the remaining complaint
was issued 61 days after receipt, without a documented extension. OSEP
looks forward to reviewing data in the APR, due February 1, 2007, that
demonstrate full compliance with this requirement.

[Collection of Data Under Section 618 of the IDEA]{.underline}

In looking at the State's system for data collection and reporting under
§618 of the IDEA, 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 any barriers (e.g., limitations on
authority, sufficient staff or other resources, etc.) that impede the
State's ability to accurately, reliably and validly collect and report
data under section 618.

For the past 20 years, IDE has used its Computerized Data (CODA) Project
to collect the data that it submits to OSEP under section 618. IDE
designed the system in collaboration with Indiana University, and
included three local special education directors on the design team.
Since its inception, CODA has been an individual student record system.
Each child is assigned a unique identifier (Student Test Number) that
remains with the child throughout his or her enrollment in school. IDE
emphasized that while it uses CODA to collect data at the State level,
its primary function is as a local information management system.

The State uses the Integrated Electronic Management (IEM) team to manage
the CODA system. An IEM staff member is assigned to each planning
district as the district's primary contact on all data collection
matters. The IEM staff member visits each of the assigned planning
districts at least three times each year to provide guidance and
training. Planning districts are encouraged to call the assigned IEM
staff member at any time for additional assistance, and they may request
additional visits. The IEM staff member also provides a number of data
workshops each year and provides one-on-one training to any new data
entry personnel. IDE explained that telephone and on-site assistance and
training are continuously available to LEAs related to data submission
and processing.

As part of their applications for Part B funds, special education
planning districts provide an assurance that they will participate in
the CODA system and electronically submit timely and accurate data. All
special education planning districts are connected electronically to
CODA, and planning districts submit data to CODA for their school
corporations. In addition to the five types of data that the State
submits to OSEP under section 618 of the IDEA (child count, educational
environment, exiting, discipline, and personnel), CODA also tracks other
information, including transition from Part C to Part B and evaluation
timelines.

The CODA system is organized by two quadrants: (1) "Q1" is an individual
student record system with over 100 data fields on each student; and (2)
"Q2" is a teacher-centered system with approximately 50 fields for
teachers including licensure. The State cross-checks data from these two
quadrants to ensure data accuracy, and teachers are asked to verify the
accuracy of data for children on their class lists.

IDE described how the CODA Manager and the Data Collection Manger meet
to perform complex edit checks and reviews of discrepancies and
"illogical" data both within a single year's data and across years. In
addition to the December submission of data, IDE also requires special
education planning districts to submit an October "resubmission" of data
to identify and resolve any potential accuracy problems in the data.

IDE explained that it had some question regarding the complete accuracy
of its suspension/expulsion data for two reasons: (1) these data are
submitted during the summer when many school corporation and planning
district personnel are not working; and (2) many of the terms related to
collection and reporting of these data are not clear. With its FFY 2005
APR due February 1, 2007, the State must submit its plan for ensuring
that the State's next submission of suspension/expulsion data under
section 618 is accurate.

OSEP's instructions for submitting data regarding educational
environments requires States to, among other data, provide data for the
following, as distinct categories: (1) private separate schools; (2)
public separate schools; (3) private residential schools; and (4) public
residential schools. The State explained, however, that it is not able
to divide the data for children in separate schools into distinct
reporting categories for public and private separate schools, or divide
the data for children in residential schools into distinct reporting
categories for public and private residential schools. With its FFY 2005
APR, due February 1, 2007, the State must submit its plan for ensuring
that the State's next submission of educational environments data under
section 618 meets the reporting requirements in OSEP's instructions.

[Statewide Assessment]{.underline}

In looking at the State's system for statewide assessment, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) establishes procedures for statewide assessments that
meet the participation, alternate assessment, and reporting requirements
of Part B, including ensuring the participation of students with
disabilities and the provision of appropriate accommodations; (2)
provides clear guidance and training to public agencies regarding those
procedures and requirements; (3) monitors local implementation of those
procedures and requirements; and (4) reports on the performance of
children with disabilities on those assessments, in a manner consistent
with the Part B requirements.

Indiana's statewide assessment system, Indiana Statewide Testing for
Educational Progress (ISTEP), was originally developed in the late 1980s
as the precursor to Indiana's current system. Currently, the State uses
the Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Plus (ISTEP+) to
assess students in English/Language Arts and Mathematics. The tests are
administered in September of each year to students in grades 3 through
10, with retests in the spring for absent students. In addition,
prototype tests for science and social studies are administered in
selected grades. A variety of accommodations in format, presentation,
environment, and response are allowed for the ISTEP+ test, and those
accommodations must be documented in the student's IEP. A list of
allowable accommodations is contained in Appendix C of the ISTEP+
Program Manual. Allowable accommodations include additional time, a
scribe, an interpreter, having portions of the test read to the student,
use of a calculator, use of a word processor (with grammar-check and
spell-check turned off), preferential seating, small group or
individualized testing, etc. Reading comprehension portions of the test
may not be read to the student, and unlimited time is not allowed. The
Student Test Number (STN) is a unique student identifier, which the
State uses to track the data on every student. This STN is scanned and
applied to each student's test booklet in order to identify testing
accommodations needed for each child with a disability.

While participation of students with disabilities in ISTEP+ assessments
will vary for individual students, all students who expect to receive a
high school diploma -- including students with disabilities -- are
subject to the graduation examination requirements.

The tenth grade ISTEP is a high stakes test known as the graduation
qualifying examination (GQE). Students have up to five opportunities to
pass the GQE during their high school careers, and can continue to take
the test after exiting high school indefinitely in order to earn a high
school diploma. A waiver from the GQE requirement for a diploma is
available to both students with and without a disability.

The OSEP APR response letter of October 14, 2005, reports, "The State
did not provide an analysis of its compliance data to determine whether
any students with disabilities did not participate in the statewide
assessment due to a failure of the public agency to meet the
requirements of \[Part B\]." In its December 2005 SPP, the State
provided its analysis regarding the participation data, explaining that
the lowest percentage of reported participation occurred at the 3^rd^
grade level, and this percentage was adversely distorted toward special
education participation, as the State has identified that some 3^rd^
grade teachers did not count students with communication disorders as
students with disabilities. The State further reported that it conducts
annual telephone reminders and more explicit written instructions, which
is improving this situation. In its SPP, the State did not, as required
by OSEP\'s October 14, 2005 letter, include an analysis of compliance
data related to the Part B requirements for statewide assessments.
Therefore, as a part of its response to Indicator 3A, in the APR due
February 1, 2007, the State must provide an analysis of compliance data
related to 34 CFR §300.320(a)(6) and section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA[^7]
with respect to statewide assessments.

> *Indiana Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR)*

Indiana's officially recognized alternate assessment is the Indiana
Standards Tool for Alternate Reporting (ISTAR). The web-based ISTAR is a
teacher-rating tool that measures the performance of students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities. Determinations regarding who is
eligible to participate in the ISTAR are based on three criteria: (1)
evidence of a significant cognitive disability; (2) intensity of
instruction; and (3) curricular outcomes. The ISTAR is usually
administered during late September or early October. ISTAR assessment
results can be recorded electronically or via pencil and paper.

During the 2004-2005 school year, 95.7% of students with disabilities
participated in either the ISTEP+ or ISTAR.

> *Reporting, Guidance, and Training*

The performance of students with disabilities on statewide assessments
is reported in the same manner as for all students, including a separate
sub-group as required by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). All
students in any public school or State-accredited non-public school must
participate and have their scores included in the reporting. OSEP has
determined, through its review of the State's written procedures for
statewide assessments and the State's reports to the public and the
Secretary on the participation and performance of children with
disabilities on such assessments, that those procedures, as written, and
those reports, are consistent with Part B requirements. OSEP cannot,
however, without also collecting data at the local level, determine
whether all public agencies in the State implement the State's
procedures in a manner that is consistent with Part B.

The State has developed guidelines to ensure that all students with
disabilities, regardless of the severity of their disability,
participate in statewide assessments. Throughout the State, districts
use the "ISTEP+ Program Manual 2006-2007" and the "ISTAR Handbook on
Alternate and Supplemental Assessment in Indiana" for consistent
guidance and decision-making when including students with disabilities
in the assessment system. In the ISTEP+ Program Manual, IDE provides
specific guidelines for Case Conference Committees to use in determining
eligibility for participation in statewide assessments.

Training is provided through web-based information, regional meetings
conducted by Center for Assessment staff, memos, and on-site training.
The need for training is assessed through a variety of sources including
email and telephone inquiries, complaint investigations, and Parent
Surveys.

*Districtwide Assessments*

OSEP finds that Indiana has not ensured compliance with the requirements
of sections 612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) of the IDEA with respect
to districtwide assessments. IDE informed OSEP that: (1) while the State
is aware that some school districts administer districtwide assessments
(in addition to the required statewide assessments), IDE does not know
which districts administer such districtwide assessments; and (2) IDE
has not monitored to ensure compliance with the requirements of sections
612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) of the IDEA with respect to
districtwide assessments. With the FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007,
the State must submit to OSEP either: (1) documentation that IDE has
corrected this area of noncompliance; or (2) the State's plan for
ensuring, within one year from the date on which OSEP approves the plan,
that IDE is monitoring to ensure that school districts that administer
districtwide assessments are complying with the requirements in sections
612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) of the IDEA with respect to
districtwide assessments.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

As noted above, the State must submit the following to OSEP with its FFY
2005 APR, due February 1, 2007:

1.  Either (a) documentation that IDE is implementing effective
    procedures for ensuring the timely correction of noncompliance,
    including being able to demonstrate that each special education
    planning district has corrected noncompliance identified for more
    than one year previously; or (b) the State's plan for correcting and
    demonstrating, within one year from the date on which OSEP accepts
    the plan, that IDE is effectively ensuring correction of
    noncompliance within the one-year timeline.

2.  As part if its response to Indicator 15, the State must, consistent
    with the instructions for the APR, provide data regarding its
    effectiveness in correcting noncompliance that it identified during
    the 2004-2005 reporting period.

3.  As part of its response to Indicator 19, the State must correct the
    erroneous language that mediators make findings and decisions.

4.  A plan for ensuring that the State's next submission of: (a)
    suspension/expulsion data under section 618 are accurate; and (b)
    educational environments data under Section 618 meet the reporting
    requirements in OSEP's instructions.

5.  An analysis of compliance data related to 34 CFR §300.320(a)(6) and
    section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA with respect statewide assessments.

6.  Either: (a) documentation that IDE has corrected the noncompliance
    with the requirements of sections 612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)
    of the IDEA with respect to districtwide assessments; or (b) the
    State's plan for ensuring, within one year from the date on which
    OSEP approves the plan, that IDE is monitoring to ensure that school
    districts that administer districtwide assessments are complying
    with the requirements of sections 612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI)
    of the IDEA with respect to districtwide assessments.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit and look forward to our continued collaboration with
Indiana to support your work to improve results for children with
disabilities and their families.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/Patricia J. Guard for

Alexa Posny, Ph.D.

Director

> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Dr. Robert Marra

Associate Superintendent of Exceptional Children

[^1]: Documents reviewed as part of the verification process were not
    reviewed for legal sufficiency but rather to inform OSEP's
    understanding of your State's systems.

[^2]: This regulatory provision was redesignated as 34 CFR §300.149 in
    the final Part B regulations that became effective on October 13,
    2006. The final Part B regulations referenced throughout this letter
    may be found at 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540 (Aug. 14, 2006).

[^3]: The regulatory provisions for the timelines of hearing decisions
    have been redesignated as 34 CFR §300.515(a) and (c) in the final
    Part B regulations that became effective on October 13, 2006.

[^4]: These regulatory provisions have been redesignated as 34 CFR
    §300.515(b) and (c) in the final Part B regulations that became
    effective on October 13, 2006.

[^5]: IDE's complaint procedures provide for IDE to resolve complaints
    within 30 calendar days from receipt, and allow the parties to
    request reconsideration of the complaint decision, but require that
    the decision on reconsideration be issued within 60 calendar days
    from the initial receipt of the complaint.

[^6]: These regulatory provisions have been redesignated, with several
    changes, as 34 CFR §300.152(a) and (b)(1) in the final Part B
    regulations that became effective on October 13, 2006.

[^7]: The regulatory provision for 34 CFR §300.347(a)(5) has been
    redesignated as 34 CFR §300.320(a)(6) in the final Part B
    regulations that became effective on October 13, 2006. The
    regulatory provision for 34 CFR §300.138 is currently reserved in
    the final Part B regulations because it is the subject of a notice
    of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on December
    15, 2005 (70 FR 74624). Section 612(a)(16) of the IDEA statute, as
    amended in 2004, retains the requirements regarding statewide
    assessments in former 34 CFR §300.138.