**Virginia Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table**

+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| **Monitoring       | **Status**    | **OSEP Analysis/Next Steps**   |
| Priorities and     |               |                                |
| Indicators**       |               |                                |
+====================+===============+================================+
| **Monitoring       |               |                                |
| Priority: FAPE in  |               |                                |
| the LRE**          |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 1.  Percent of     | The State's   | The State revised the targets  |
|     youth with     | FFY 2005      | for this indicator in its APR, |
|     IEPs           | reported data | and OSEP accepts those         |
|     graduating     | for this      | revisions. The State did not   |
|     from high      | indicator are | indicate stakeholder           |
|     school with a  | 48.6%. This   | involvement in the revision of |
|     regular        | represents    | targets to be less rigorous.   |
|     diploma        | slippage from | The State did not reflect the  |
|     compared to    | FFY 2004 data | revised targets in its revised |
|     percent of all | of 51.5%. The | SPP, and must update the SPP   |
|     youth in the   | State did not | to include the revised         |
|     State          | meet its FFY  | targets.                       |
|     graduating     | 2005 target   |                                |
|     with a regular | of 55%.       | OSEP looks forward to the      |
|     diploma.       |               | State's data demonstrating     |
|                    |               | improvement in performance in  |
| \[Results          |               | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| Indicator\]        |               | 1, 2008.                       |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 1.  Percent of     | The State's   | The State revised the          |
|     youth with     | FFY 2005      | improvement activities for     |
|     IEPs dropping  | reported data | this indicator in its APR, and |
|     out of high    | for this      | OSEP accepts those revisions.  |
|     school         | indicator are | The State did not reflect the  |
|     compared to    | 2.2%. This    | revised improvement activities |
|     the percent of | represents    | in its revised SPP, and must   |
|     all youth in   | slippage from | update the SPP to include the  |
|     the State      | FFY 2004 data | revised activities.            |
|     dropping out   | of 1.96%. The |                                |
|     of high        | State did not | OSEP looks forward to the      |
|     school.        | meet its FFY  | State's data demonstrating     |
|                    | 2005 target   | improvement in performance in  |
| \[Results          | of 1.93%.     | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| Indicator\]        |               | 1, 2008.                       |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation  | The State's   | OSEP appreciates the State's   |
| and performance of | FFY 2005      | efforts to improve             |
| children with      | reported data | performance.                   |
| disabilities on    | for this      |                                |
| statewide          | indicator are |                                |
| assessments:       | 76.5%. The    |                                |
|                    | State met its |                                |
| A. Percent of      | FFY 2005      |                                |
| districts that     | target of     |                                |
| have a disability  | 64%.          |                                |
| subgroup that      |               |                                |
| meets the State's  |               |                                |
| minimum "n" size   |               |                                |
| meeting the        |               |                                |
| State's AYP        |               |                                |
| objectives for     |               |                                |
| progress for       |               |                                |
| disability         |               |                                |
| subgroup.          |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Results          |               |                                |
| Indicator\]        |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation  | Although the  | The data that the State        |
| and performance of | State         | reported in the APR were not   |
| children with      | reported a    | consistent with the data in    |
| disabilities on    | 99.8% rate of | Table 6. In the FFY 2006 APR,  |
| statewide          | participation | due February 1, 2008, the      |
| assessments:       | for reading   | State must report data that    |
|                    | for Indicator | are consistent with Table 6.   |
| B. Participation   | 3B in the     |                                |
| rate for children  | APR, the FFY  | OSEP looks forward to the      |
| with IEPs in a     | 2005 data in  | State's data demonstrating     |
| regular assessment | Table 6 (618  | improvement in performance in  |
| with no            | data)         | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| accommodations;    | calculate to  | 1, 2008.                       |
| regular assessment | a             |                                |
| with               | participation |                                |
| accommodations;    | rate of 92.9% |                                |
| alternate          | (83           |                                |
| assessment against | ,472/89,895). |                                |
| grade level        | The Table 6   |                                |
| standards;         | data show     |                                |
| alternate          | slippage from |                                |
| assessment against | FFY 2004 data |                                |
| alternate          | of 97.9%. The |                                |
| achievement        | State did not |                                |
| standards.         | meet its      |                                |
|                    | target of     |                                |
| \[Results          | 95%.          |                                |
| Indicator\]        |               |                                |
|                    | Although the  |                                |
|                    | State         |                                |
|                    | reported a    |                                |
|                    | 99.7% rate of |                                |
|                    | participation |                                |
|                    | for math for  |                                |
|                    | Indicator 3B  |                                |
|                    | in the APR,   |                                |
|                    | the FFY 2005  |                                |
|                    | data in Table |                                |
|                    | 6 calculate   |                                |
|                    | to a          |                                |
|                    | participation |                                |
|                    | rate of 94.6% |                                |
|                    | (95,          |                                |
|                    | 668/101,147). |                                |
|                    | The Table 6   |                                |
|                    | data show     |                                |
|                    | slippage from |                                |
|                    | FFY 2004 data |                                |
|                    | of 98.3%. The |                                |
|                    | State did not |                                |
|                    | meet its      |                                |
|                    | target of     |                                |
|                    | 95%.          |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation  | Although the  | The data that the State        |
| and performance of | State         | reported in the APR were not   |
| children with      | reported FFY  | consistent with the data in    |
| disabilities on    | 2005 data of  | Table 6. In the FFY 2006 APR,  |
| statewide          | 64.6% for     | due February 1, 2008, the      |
| assessments:       | reading in    | State must report data that    |
|                    | Indicator 3C  | are consistent with Table 6.   |
| C. Proficiency     | in the APR,   |                                |
| rate for children  | the FFY 2005  | OSEP looks forward to the      |
| with IEPs against  | data in Table | State's data demonstrating     |
| grade level        | 6 calculate   | improvement in performance in  |
| standards and      | to a rate of  | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| alternate          | 59.98%        | 1, 2008.                       |
| achievement        | (53           |                                |
| standards.         | ,921/89,895). |                                |
|                    | The State did |                                |
| \[Results          | not meet its  |                                |
| Indicator\]        | FFY 2005      |                                |
|                    | target of     |                                |
|                    | 69%. OSEP     |                                |
|                    | could not     |                                |
|                    | determine     |                                |
|                    | whether the   |                                |
|                    | State made    |                                |
|                    | progress from |                                |
|                    | FFY 2004      |                                |
|                    | data, because |                                |
|                    | the FFY 2005  |                                |
|                    | data are a    |                                |
|                    | single        |                                |
|                    | percentage of |                                |
|                    | students with |                                |
|                    | disabilities  |                                |
|                    | who scored    |                                |
|                    | "proficient"  |                                |
|                    | on the        |                                |
|                    | reading       |                                |
|                    | assessment.   |                                |
|                    | The FFY 2004  |                                |
|                    | data were not |                                |
|                    | separated for |                                |
|                    | reading and   |                                |
|                    | math, but     |                                |
|                    | were stated   |                                |
|                    | separately    |                                |
|                    | for students  |                                |
|                    | who took the  |                                |
|                    | regular       |                                |
|                    | assessment    |                                |
|                    | with no       |                                |
|                    | ac            |                                |
|                    | commodations, |                                |
|                    | students who  |                                |
|                    | took the      |                                |
|                    | assessment    |                                |
|                    | with          |                                |
|                    | ac            |                                |
|                    | commodations, |                                |
|                    | students who  |                                |
|                    | took          |                                |
|                    | alternate     |                                |
|                    | assessments   |                                |
|                    | against grade |                                |
|                    | level         |                                |
|                    | standards,    |                                |
|                    | and students  |                                |
|                    | who took      |                                |
|                    | alternate     |                                |
|                    | assessments   |                                |
|                    | against       |                                |
|                    | alternate     |                                |
|                    | achievement   |                                |
|                    | standards;    |                                |
|                    | and were not  |                                |
|                    | aggregated    |                                |
|                    | into a single |                                |
|                    | percentage.   |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    | Although the  |                                |
|                    | State         |                                |
|                    | reported FFY  |                                |
|                    | 2005 data of  |                                |
|                    | 53.6% for     |                                |
|                    | math in       |                                |
|                    | Indicator 3C  |                                |
|                    | in the APR ,  |                                |
|                    | the FFY 2005  |                                |
|                    | data in Table |                                |
|                    | 6 calculate   |                                |
|                    | to 50.75%     |                                |
|                    | (51,          |                                |
|                    | 328/101,147). |                                |
|                    | OSEP could    |                                |
|                    | not determine |                                |
|                    | whether the   |                                |
|                    | State made    |                                |
|                    | progress from |                                |
|                    | FFY 2004 data |                                |
|                    | of 49.3% for  |                                |
|                    | the reasons   |                                |
|                    | stated above. |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 4\. Rates of       | The State's   | The State included separate    |
| suspension and     | FFY 2005      | baseline data, targets and     |
| expulsion:         | reported data | actual target data for the     |
|                    | for           | percent of districts with a    |
| A. Percent of      | suspensions   | significant discrepancy in the |
| districts          | are 20%. This | rates of: (1) suspensions; and |
| identified by the  | represents    | (2) expulsions.                |
| State as having a  | slippage from |                                |
| significant        | FFY 2004 data | The State was instructed in    |
| discrepancy in the | of 13.6%. The | Table B of OSEP's March 14,    |
| rates of           | State did not | 2006 SPP response letter to    |
| suspensions and    | meet its FFY  | report on the results of its   |
| expulsions of      | 2005 target   | review, under 34 CFR §300.146  |
| children with      | of 12%.       | (now 34 CFR §300.170(b)), of   |
| disabilities for   |               | policies, procedures, and      |
| greater than 10    | The State's   | practices related to the       |
| days in a school   | FFY 2005      | development and implementation |
| year; and          | reported data | of IEPs, the use of positive   |
|                    | for           | behavioral interventions and   |
| \[Results          | expulsions    | supports, and procedural       |
| Indicator\]        | are 14%. This | safeguards to ensure they      |
|                    | represents    | comply with Part B. On page 16 |
|                    | slippage from | of FFY 2005 APR, the State     |
|                    | FFY 2004 data | reported that it provided      |
|                    | of 9%. The    | technical assistance, focusing |
|                    | State did not | on providing information on    |
|                    | meet its FFY  | functional behavioral          |
|                    | 2005 target   | assessments and developing     |
|                    | of 8%.        | behavior intervention plans,   |
|                    |               | to school divisions where a    |
|                    |               | significant discrepancy was    |
|                    |               | identified. The State also     |
|                    |               | noted that on-going            |
|                    |               | assessments, including review  |
|                    |               | of policies, procedures, and   |
|                    |               | practices are an essential     |
|                    |               | part of the Effective School   |
|                    |               | Discipline project. The State  |
|                    |               | did not, however, provide a    |
|                    |               | report on the results of its   |
|                    |               | review of policies,            |
|                    |               | procedures, and practices.     |
|                    |               | This represents noncompliance  |
|                    |               | with 34 CFR §300.170(b).       |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | In its FFY 2006 APR, the State |
|                    |               | must describe the review, and  |
|                    |               | if appropriate revision, of    |
|                    |               | policies, procedures, and      |
|                    |               | practices relating to the      |
|                    |               | development and implementation |
|                    |               | of IEPs, the use of positive   |
|                    |               | behavioral interventions and   |
|                    |               | supports, and procedural       |
|                    |               | safeguards to ensure           |
|                    |               | compliance with the IDEA for:  |
|                    |               | (1) the LEAs identified as     |
|                    |               | having significant             |
|                    |               | discrepancies in the FFY 2005  |
|                    |               | APR; and (2) the LEAs          |
|                    |               | identified as having           |
|                    |               | significant discrepancies in   |
|                    |               | the FFY 2006 APR.              |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | OSEP looks forward to the      |
|                    |               | State's data demonstrating     |
|                    |               | improvement in performance in  |
|                    |               | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
|                    |               | 1, 2008.                       |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 4\. Rates of       |               | Based upon our preliminary     |
| suspension and     |               | review of all State            |
| expulsion:         |               | submissions for Indicator 4B,  |
|                    |               | it appears that the            |
| B. Percent of      |               | instructions for this          |
| districts          |               | indicator were not             |
| identified by the  |               | sufficiently clear and, as a   |
| State as having a  |               | result, confusion remains      |
| significant        |               | regarding the establishment of |
| discrepancy in the |               | measurements and targets that  |
| rates of           |               | are race-based and for which   |
| suspensions and    |               | there is no finding that the   |
| expulsions of      |               | significant discrepancy is     |
| greater than 10    |               | based on inappropriate         |
| days in a school   |               | policies, procedures, or       |
| year of children   |               | practices relating to the      |
| with disabilities  |               | development and implementation |
| by race and        |               | of IEPs, the use of positive   |
| ethnicity.         |               | behavioral interventions and   |
|                    |               | supports, and procedural       |
| \[Results          |               | safeguards. As a result, use   |
| Indicator; New\]   |               | of these targets could raise   |
|                    |               | Constitutional concerns.       |
|                    |               | Therefore, OSEP has decided    |
|                    |               | not to review this year's      |
|                    |               | submissions for Indicator 4B   |
|                    |               | for purposes of approval and   |
|                    |               | will revise instructions for   |
|                    |               | this indicator to clarify how  |
|                    |               | this indicator will be used in |
|                    |               | the future. Based upon this,   |
|                    |               | OSEP did not consider the      |
|                    |               | submissions for Indicator 4B   |
|                    |               | in making determinations under |
|                    |               | section 616(d). It is also     |
|                    |               | important that States          |
|                    |               | immediately cease using        |
|                    |               | Indicator 4B measurements and  |
|                    |               | targets, unless they are based |
|                    |               | on a finding of inappropriate  |
|                    |               | policies, procedures, or       |
|                    |               | practices relating to the      |
|                    |               | development and implementation |
|                    |               | of IEPs, the use of positive   |
|                    |               | behavioral interventions and   |
|                    |               | supports, and procedural       |
|                    |               | safeguards.                    |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 5\. Percent of     | 5A: The       | 5A: OSEP looks forward to the  |
| children with IEPs | State's FFY   | State's data demonstrating     |
| aged 6 through 21: | 2005 reported | improvement in performance in  |
|                    | data for this | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| A. Removed from    | indicator are | 1, 2008.                       |
| regular class less | 56% (FFY 2004 |                                |
| than 21% of the    | data were     | 5B: The State met its target   |
| day;               | also 56%).    | and OSEP appreciates the       |
|                    | The State did | State's efforts to improve     |
| B. Removed from    | not meet its  | performance.                   |
| regular class      | FFY 2005      |                                |
| greater than 60%   | target of     | 5C: OSEP looks forward to the  |
| of the day; or     | 58%.          | State's data demonstrating     |
|                    |               | improvement in performance in  |
| C. Served in       | 5B: The       | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| public or private  | State's FFY   | 1, 2008.                       |
| separate schools,  | 2005 reported |                                |
| residential        | data for this |                                |
| placements, or     | indicator are |                                |
| homebound or       | 14%. This     |                                |
| hospital           | represents    |                                |
| placements.        | progress from |                                |
|                    | FFY 2004 data |                                |
| \[Results          | of 15%. The   |                                |
| Indicator\]        | State met its |                                |
|                    | FFY 2005      |                                |
|                    | target of     |                                |
|                    | 14%.          |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    | 5C: Although  |                                |
|                    | the State     |                                |
|                    | reported in   |                                |
|                    | the APR that  |                                |
|                    | its data for  |                                |
|                    | FFY 2005 were |                                |
|                    | 3%, the       |                                |
|                    | actual        |                                |
|                    | numbers that  |                                |
|                    | the State     |                                |
|                    | reported in   |                                |
|                    | its APR and   |                                |
|                    | its report    |                                |
|                    | under section |                                |
|                    | 618 calculate |                                |
|                    | to 3.78%. The |                                |
|                    | data of 3.78% |                                |
|                    | represent     |                                |
|                    | slippage from |                                |
|                    | the FFY 2004  |                                |
|                    | data of       |                                |
|                    | 3.73%. The    |                                |
|                    | State did not |                                |
|                    | meet its FFY  |                                |
|                    | 2005 target   |                                |
|                    | of 3%.        |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 6\. Percent of     | The State's   | The State met its target and   |
| preschool children | FFY 2005      | OSEP appreciates the State's   |
| with IEPs who      | reported data | efforts to improve             |
| received special   | for this      | performance.                   |
| education and      | indicator are |                                |
| related services   | 30%. The      | Please note that, due to       |
| in settings with   | State met its | changes in the 618             |
| typically          | FFY 2005      | State-reported data            |
| developing peers   | target of     | collection, this indicator     |
| (i.e., early       | 28%.          | will change for the FFY 2006   |
| childhood          |               | APR, due February 1, 2008.     |
| settings, home,    |               | States will be required to     |
| and part-time      |               | describe how they will collect |
| early              |               | valid and reliable data to     |
| c                  |               | provide baseline and targets   |
| hildhood/part-time |               | in the FFY 2007 APR, due       |
| early childhood    |               | February 1, 2008.              |
| special education  |               |                                |
| settings).         |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Results          |               |                                |
| Indicator\]        |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 7\. Percent of     | Entry data    | The State reported the         |
| preschool children | provided.     | required entry data and        |
| with IEPs who      |               | activities. The State must     |
| demonstrate        |               | provide progress data and      |
| improved:          |               | improvement activities with    |
|                    |               | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| A.  Positive       |               | 1, 2008.                       |
|                    |               |                                |
|   social-emotional |               |                                |
|     skills         |               |                                |
|     (including     |               |                                |
|     social         |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
|    relationships); |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| ```{=html}         |               |                                |
| <!-- -->           |               |                                |
| ```                |               |                                |
| A.  Acquisition    |               |                                |
|     and use of     |               |                                |
|     knowledge and  |               |                                |
|     skills         |               |                                |
|     (including     |               |                                |
|     early          |               |                                |
|     language/      |               |                                |
|     communication  |               |                                |
|     and early      |               |                                |
|     literacy); and |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| B.  Use of         |               |                                |
|     appropriate    |               |                                |
|     behaviors to   |               |                                |
|     meet their     |               |                                |
|     needs.         |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Results          |               |                                |
| Indicator; New\]   |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 8\. Percent of     | The State's   | The State provided baseline    |
| parents with a     | reported      | data, targets and improvement  |
| child receiving    | baseline data | activities and OSEP accepts    |
| special education  | for this      | the SPP for this indicator.    |
| services who       | indicator are |                                |
| report that        | 64.3%.        | The State did not provide an   |
| schools            |               | explanation of how the         |
| facilitated parent |               | response rate was              |
| involvement as a   |               | representative of the          |
| means of improving |               | population in race, ethnicity, |
| services and       |               | and disability, or how the     |
| results for        |               | State will have adequate data  |
| children with      |               | to report on LEA performance   |
| disabilities.      |               | with low response rate. The    |
|                    |               | State must provide the         |
| > \[Results        |               | required explanations in the   |
| > Indicator; New\] |               | FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,  |
|                    |               | 2008.                          |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| > **Monitoring     |               |                                |
| > Priority:        |               |                                |
| > Di               |               |                                |
| sproportionality** |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 9\. Percent of     | The State     | The State provided baseline    |
| districts with     | reported that | data, targets at 0% and        |
| disproportionate   | 6% of         | improvement activities and     |
| representation of  | districts     | OSEP accepts the SPP for this  |
| racial and ethnic  | have          | indicator.                     |
| groups in special  | "significant  |                                |
| education and      | dispr         | OSEP's March 14, 2006 SPP      |
| related services   | oportionality | response letter required the   |
| that is the result | that was the  | State to ensure that the       |
| of inappropriate   | result of     | noncompliance with the         |
| identification.    | inappropriate | requirements of 34 CFR         |
|                    | ide           | §300.755(b) (now 34 CFR        |
| \[Compliance       | ntification." | §300.600(d)(3)) was corrected, |
| Indicator; New\]   |               | and to include the results of  |
|                    |               | its review under that section  |
|                    |               | in the APR, due February 1,    |
|                    |               | 2007. On page 34 of the APR,   |
|                    |               | the State reported that it     |
|                    |               | required all school divisions  |
|                    |               | with preliminary               |
|                    |               | determinations of possible     |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation relative to the |
|                    |               | identification of black        |
|                    |               | students as students with      |
|                    |               | disabilities to use a record   |
|                    |               | review checklist to document   |
|                    |               | that eligibility decisions     |
|                    |               | were made appropriately. The   |
|                    |               | State also reported that it    |
|                    |               | provided information to those  |
|                    |               | school divisions to assist     |
|                    |               | with the examination of        |
|                    |               | policies, procedures and       |
|                    |               | practices related to provided  |
|                    |               | assistance, support and        |
|                    |               | appropriate instructional      |
|                    |               | intervention to all students   |
|                    |               | experiencing                   |
|                    |               | academic/behavioral learning   |
|                    |               | difficulties. The school       |
|                    |               | divisions were required to     |
|                    |               | submit to the State a written  |
|                    |               | summary of their record review |
|                    |               | process, which the State       |
|                    |               | analyzed to determine which    |
|                    |               | school divisions had           |
|                    |               | significant disproportionality |
|                    |               | that was the result of         |
|                    |               | inappropriate identification.  |
|                    |               | The State reported that the    |
|                    |               | school divisions found to be   |
|                    |               | disproportionally represented  |
|                    |               | due to inappropriate           |
|                    |               | identification will be         |
|                    |               | expected to develop an action  |
|                    |               | plan, which will include a     |
|                    |               | review of local policies,      |
|                    |               | practices and procedures to    |
|                    |               | determine whether revisions    |
|                    |               | are necessary to address       |
|                    |               | issues related to possible     |
|                    |               | significant                    |
|                    |               | disproportionality.            |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | The State reported the percent |
|                    |               | of districts with significant  |
|                    |               | disproportionality of racial   |
|                    |               | and ethnic groups in special   |
|                    |               | education and related services |
|                    |               | that was the result of         |
|                    |               | inappropriate identification.  |
|                    |               | Indicator 9 requires that      |
|                    |               | States report on the percent   |
|                    |               | of districts with              |
|                    |               | *disproportionate              |
|                    |               | representation* of racial and  |
|                    |               | ethnic groups in special       |
|                    |               | education and related services |
|                    |               | that was the result of         |
|                    |               | inappropriate identification.  |
|                    |               | The State must include, in its |
|                    |               | FFY 2006 APR, its definition   |
|                    |               | of disproportionate            |
|                    |               | representation and describe    |
|                    |               | how the State determined that  |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation of racial and   |
|                    |               | ethnic groups in special       |
|                    |               | education and related services |
|                    |               | was the result of              |
|                    |               | inappropriate identification   |
|                    |               | (e.g. monitoring data, review  |
|                    |               | of polices, practices and      |
|                    |               | procedures, etc.). The State   |
|                    |               | limited its review of data to  |
|                    |               | overrepresentation of Black    |
|                    |               | students, and also did not, as |
|                    |               | required, review data for all  |
|                    |               | racial and ethnic groups, and  |
|                    |               | address both                   |
|                    |               | overrepresentation             |
|                    |               | **[and]{.underline}**          |
|                    |               | underrepresentation. Under 34  |
|                    |               | CFR §300.600(d)(3) a State     |
|                    |               | may, in reviewing data for     |
|                    |               | each race ethnicity category,  |
|                    |               | do so in a statistically       |
|                    |               | appropriate manner, and may    |
|                    |               | set an "n" size that applies   |
|                    |               | to all racial and ethnic       |
|                    |               | groups, but it must review     |
|                    |               | data for all race ethnicity    |
|                    |               | categories in the State and    |
|                    |               | must do the analysis at the    |
|                    |               | LEA level for all race and     |
|                    |               | ethnic groups meeting that "n" |
|                    |               | size that are present in any   |
|                    |               | of its LEAs. Further, the      |
|                    |               | State reported that it did not |
|                    |               | include school divisions with  |
|                    |               | Black students comprising      |
|                    |               | fewer than 5% of the general   |
|                    |               | education population.          |
|                    |               | Therefore, we conclude that    |
|                    |               | the State is not complying     |
|                    |               | with 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3).    |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | To correct this noncompliance, |
|                    |               | in its FFY 2006 APR, due       |
|                    |               | February 1, 2008, the State    |
|                    |               | must provide information       |
|                    |               | demonstrating that it has      |
|                    |               | examined for FFY 2005 and FFY  |
|                    |               | 2006, both overrepresentation  |
|                    |               | and underrepresentation of all |
|                    |               | racial and ethnic groups in    |
|                    |               | special education and related  |
|                    |               | services. The State, in its    |
|                    |               | FFY 2006 APR, must also        |
|                    |               | describe and report on, its    |
|                    |               | review of data and information |
|                    |               | for all race ethnicity         |
|                    |               | categories in the State to     |
|                    |               | determine if there is          |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation that is the     |
|                    |               | result of inappropriate        |
|                    |               | identification for both FFY    |
|                    |               | 2005 and FFY 2006.             |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 10\. Percent of    | The State     | The State provided baseline    |
| districts with     | reported that | data, targets at 0% and        |
| disproportionate   | 9% of         | improvement activities and     |
| representation of  | districts     | OSEP accepts the SPP for this  |
| racial and ethnic  | "indicated    | indicator.                     |
| groups in specific | some level of |                                |
| disability         | inappropriate | On page 38 of the FFY 2005     |
| categories that is | i             | APR, the State reported that   |
| the result of      | dentification | it notified all school         |
| inappropriate      | related to at | divisions with preliminary     |
| identification.    | least one of  | determinations of possible     |
|                    | the six       | disproportionate               |
| \[Compliance       | designated    | representation relative to one |
| Indicator; New\]   | disability    | or more of the six designated  |
|                    | categories."  | disability categories and were |
|                    |               | further notified that they     |
|                    |               | were required to review        |
|                    |               | records of all black students  |
|                    |               | aged 6-21 referred for an      |
|                    |               | initial eligibility meeting    |
|                    |               | during the 2005-2006 school    |
|                    |               | year. These school divisions   |
|                    |               | used a record review checklist |
|                    |               | to determine whether specific  |
|                    |               | criteria had been addressed in |
|                    |               | making eligibility decisions   |
|                    |               | for the six disability         |
|                    |               | categories. The school         |
|                    |               | divisions were required to     |
|                    |               | submit to the State a written  |
|                    |               | summary of their record review |
|                    |               | process, which the State       |
|                    |               | analyzed to determine which    |
|                    |               | school divisions had           |
|                    |               | significant disproportionality |
|                    |               | that was the result of         |
|                    |               | inappropriate identification   |
|                    |               | for one or more of the six     |
|                    |               | designated disability          |
|                    |               | categories. The Stated         |
|                    |               | reported that the school       |
|                    |               | divisions found to have        |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation due to          |
|                    |               | inappropriate identification   |
|                    |               | in any of the designated       |
|                    |               | disability categories will be  |
|                    |               | expected to develop an action  |
|                    |               | plan, which will include a     |
|                    |               | review of local policies,      |
|                    |               | practices and procedures to    |
|                    |               | determine whether revisions    |
|                    |               | are necessary to address       |
|                    |               | issues related to possible     |
|                    |               | significant                    |
|                    |               | disproportionality.            |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | The State reported the percent |
|                    |               | of districts with significant  |
|                    |               | disproportionality of racial   |
|                    |               | and ethnic groups in specific  |
|                    |               | disability categories that was |
|                    |               | the result of inappropriate    |
|                    |               | identification. Indicator 10   |
|                    |               | requires that States report on |
|                    |               | the percent of districts with  |
|                    |               | *disproportionate              |
|                    |               | representation* of racial and  |
|                    |               | ethnic groups in specific      |
|                    |               | disability categories that was |
|                    |               | the result of inappropriate    |
|                    |               | identification. The State must |
|                    |               | include, in its FFY 2006 APR,  |
|                    |               | its definition of              |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation and describe    |
|                    |               | how the State determined that  |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation of racial and   |
|                    |               | ethnic groups in specific      |
|                    |               | disability categories was the  |
|                    |               | result of inappropriate        |
|                    |               | identification (e.g.,          |
|                    |               | monitoring data, review of     |
|                    |               | polices, practices and         |
|                    |               | procedures, etc.).             |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | The State limited its review   |
|                    |               | of data to overrepresentation  |
|                    |               | of Black students, and did not |
|                    |               | also, as required, review data |
|                    |               | for all racial and ethnic      |
|                    |               | groups, and address both       |
|                    |               | overrepresentation             |
|                    |               | **[and]{.underline}**          |
|                    |               | underrepresentation. Under 34  |
|                    |               | CFR §300.600(d)(3) a State     |
|                    |               | may, in reviewing data for     |
|                    |               | each race ethnicity category,  |
|                    |               | do so in a statistically       |
|                    |               | appropriate manner, and may    |
|                    |               | set an "n" size that applies   |
|                    |               | to all racial and ethnic       |
|                    |               | groups, but it must review     |
|                    |               | data for all race ethnicity    |
|                    |               | categories in the State and    |
|                    |               | must do the analysis at the    |
|                    |               | LEA level for all race and     |
|                    |               | ethnic groups meeting that "n" |
|                    |               | size that are present in any   |
|                    |               | of its LEAs. Further, the      |
|                    |               | State reported that it did not |
|                    |               | include school divisions with  |
|                    |               | Black students comprising      |
|                    |               | fewer than 5% of the general   |
|                    |               | education population.          |
|                    |               | Therefore, we conclude that    |
|                    |               | the State is not complying     |
|                    |               | with 34 CFR §300.600(d)(3).    |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | To correct this noncompliance, |
|                    |               | in its FFY 2006 APR, due       |
|                    |               | February 1, 2008, the State    |
|                    |               | must provide information       |
|                    |               | demonstrating that it has      |
|                    |               | examined for FFY 2005 and FFY  |
|                    |               | 2006, both overrepresentation  |
|                    |               | and underrepresentation of all |
|                    |               | racial and ethnic groups. The  |
|                    |               | State, in its FFY 2006 APR,    |
|                    |               | must also describe and report  |
|                    |               | on, its review of data and     |
|                    |               | information for all race       |
|                    |               | ethnicity categories in the    |
|                    |               | State to determine if there is |
|                    |               | disproportionate               |
|                    |               | representation that is the     |
|                    |               | result of inappropriate        |
|                    |               | identification for both FFY    |
|                    |               | 2005 and FFY 2006.             |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| **Monitoring       |               |                                |
| Priority:          |               |                                |
| Effective General  |               |                                |
| Supervision**      |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 11\. Percent of    | > The State's | The State provided baseline    |
| children with      | > FFY 2005    | data, targets and improvement  |
| parental consent   | > reported    | activities. The State reported |
| to evaluate, who   | > baseline    | data based on a                |
| were evaluated     | > data for    | State-established timeframe    |
| within 60 days (or | > this        | within which the evaluation    |
| State-established  | > indicator   | must be conducted.             |
| timeline).         | > are 92.7%   |                                |
|                    |               | OSEP looks forward to          |
| \[Compliance       |               | reviewing data in the FFY 2006 |
| Indicator; New\]   |               | APR, due February 1, 2008,     |
|                    |               | that demonstrate compliance    |
|                    |               | with the requirements of 34    |
|                    |               | CFR §300.301(c)(2), including  |
|                    |               | data demonstrating correction  |
|                    |               | of noncompliance identified in |
|                    |               | FFY 2005.                      |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 12. Percent of     | The State's   | OSEP's March 14, 2006 SPP      |
|     children       | FFY 2005      | response letter, Table A,      |
|     referred by    | reported data | required the State to include  |
|     Part C prior   | for this      | in the APR, due February 1,    |
|     to age 3, who  | indicator are | 2007, both baseline data from  |
|     are found      | 89.3%. This   | FFY 2004 (July 1, 2004 through |
|     eligible for   | represents    | June 30, 2005) and progress    |
|     Part B, and    | slippage from | data from FFY 2005 (July 1,    |
|     who have an    | the FFY 2004  | 2005 through June 30, 2006).   |
|     IEP developed  | data of       | Table B of OSEP's SPP response |
|     and            | 91.2%. The    | letter required the State to   |
|     implemented by | State did not | ensure that noncompliance is   |
|     their third    | meet its FFY  | corrected, include data in the |
|     birthdays.     | 2005 target   | APR, due February 1, 2007 that |
|                    | of 100%.      | demonstrate compliance with 34 |
| \[Compliance       |               | CFR §300.132 (now §300.124),   |
| Indicator\]        | The State     | and to review and, if          |
|                    | reported      | necessary revise, its          |
|                    | partial       | improvement strategies         |
|                    | timely        | included in the SPP to ensure  |
|                    | correction of | they would enable the State to |
|                    | n             | include data in the APR that   |
|                    | oncompliance. | demonstrate full compliance    |
|                    |               | with this requirement.         |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | The State provided FFY 2004    |
|                    |               | baseline data and FFY 2005     |
|                    |               | target data for this           |
|                    |               | indicator, and OSEP accepts    |
|                    |               | that revision.                 |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | In its response to Indicator   |
|                    |               | 15 in the FFY 2005 APR, the    |
|                    |               | State reported partial timely  |
|                    |               | correction of noncompliance    |
|                    |               | related to this indicator. The |
|                    |               | State indicated that, for the  |
|                    |               | issue raised related to        |
|                    |               | Indicator 12 in the SPP for    |
|                    |               | the 2004-2005 school year, all |
|                    |               | noncompliance findings,        |
|                    |               | including those that had not   |
|                    |               | been corrected within one year |
|                    |               | of identification, have been   |
|                    |               | corrected. The State reported  |
|                    |               | that it made on-site visits to |
|                    |               | districts that failed to make  |
|                    |               | corrections within one year,   |
|                    |               | met with the special education |
|                    |               | directors and superintendents, |
|                    |               | required monthly progress      |
|                    |               | reports, provided technical    |
|                    |               | assistance, and received       |
|                    |               | documentation verifying        |
|                    |               | compliance with identified     |
|                    |               | noncompliance findings.        |
|                    |               |                                |
|                    |               | The State must review its      |
|                    |               | improvement activities and     |
|                    |               | revise them, if appropriate,   |
|                    |               | to ensure they will enable the |
|                    |               | State to include data in the   |
|                    |               | FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,  |
|                    |               | 2008, that demonstrate         |
|                    |               | compliance with the            |
|                    |               | requirements of 34 CFR         |
|                    |               | §300.124, including data on    |
|                    |               | the correction of outstanding  |
|                    |               | noncompliance identified in    |
|                    |               | FFY 2005.                      |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 13\. Percent of    | The State's   | The State provided baseline    |
| youth aged 16 and  | FFY 2005      | data, targets and improvement  |
| above with an IEP  | reported      | activities, and OSEP accepts   |
| that includes      | baseline data | the SPP for this indicator.    |
| coordinated,       | for this      |                                |
| measurable, annual | indicator are | OSEP looks forward to          |
| IEP goals and      | 76.83%.       | reviewing data in the FFY 2006 |
| transition         |               | APR, due February 1, 2008,     |
| services that will |               | that demonstrate compliance    |
| reasonably enable  |               | with the requirements of 34    |
| the student to     |               | CFR §300.320(b), including     |
| meet the           |               | data demonstrating correction  |
| post-secondary     |               | of noncompliance identified in |
| goals.             |               | FFY 2005.                      |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Compliance       |               |                                |
| Indicator; New\]   |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 14\. Percent of    | The State     | The State provided a plan that |
| youth who had      | provided a    | describes how data will be     |
| IEPs, are no       | plan that     | collected. The State must      |
| longer in          | describes how | provide baseline data,         |
| secondary school   | data will be  | targets, and improvement       |
| and who have been  | collected.    | activities with the FFY 2006   |
| competitively      |               | APR, due February 1, 2008.     |
| employed, enrolled |               |                                |
| in some type of    |               |                                |
| post-secondary     |               |                                |
| school, or both,   |               |                                |
| within one year of |               |                                |
| leaving high       |               |                                |
| school.            |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Results          |               |                                |
| Indicator; New\]   |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 15\. General       | The State's   | The State provided data for    |
| supervision system | FFY 2005      | this indicator indicating 96%  |
| (including         | reported data | compliance, and OSEP           |
| monitoring,        | for this      | appreciates the State's        |
| complaints,        | indicator are | efforts.                       |
| hearings, etc.)    | 96%. This     |                                |
| identifies and     | represents    | OSEP looks forward to          |
| corrects           | slippage from | reviewing data in the FFY 2006 |
| noncompliance as   | the FFY 2004  | APR, due February 1, 2008,     |
| soon as possible   | data of 100%. | that demonstrate compliance    |
| but in no case     | The State did | with the requirements in 20    |
| later than one     | not meet its  | U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), and 34  |
| year from          | FFY 2005      | CFR §§300.149 and 300.600. In  |
| identification.    | target of     | its response to Indicator 15   |
|                    | 100%.         | in the FFY 2006 APR, due       |
| \[Compliance       |               | February 1, 2008, the State    |
| Indicator\]        |               | must disaggregate by APR       |
|                    |               | indicator the status of timely |
|                    |               | correction of the              |
|                    |               | noncompliance findings         |
|                    |               | identified by the State during |
|                    |               | FFY 2005. In addition, the     |
|                    |               | State must, in responding to   |
|                    |               | Indicators 4A, 9, 10, 11, 12,  |
|                    |               | and 13, specifically identify  |
|                    |               | and address the noncompliance  |
|                    |               | identified in this table under |
|                    |               | those indicators.              |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 16\. Percent of    | The State's   | OSEP appreciates the State's   |
| signed written     | FFY 2005      | efforts in achieving           |
| complaints with    | reported data | compliance and looks forward   |
| reports issued     | for this      | to reviewing data in the FFY   |
| that were resolved | indicator are | 2006 APR, due February 1,      |
| within 60-day      | 100%. The     | 2008, that continue to         |
| timeline or a      | State met its | demonstrate compliance with    |
| timeline extended  | FFY 2005      | the requirements of 34 CFR     |
| for exceptional    | target of     | §300.152.                      |
| circumstances with | 100%.         |                                |
| respect to a       |               |                                |
| particular         |               |                                |
| complaint.         |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Compliance       |               |                                |
| Indicator\]        |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 17\. Percent of    | The State's   | OSEP appreciates the State's   |
| fully adjudicated  | FFY 2005      | efforts in achieving           |
| due process        | reported data | compliance and looks forward   |
| hearing requests   | for this      | to reviewing data in the FFY   |
| that were fully    | indicator are | 2006 APR, due February 1,      |
| adjudicated within | 100%. The     | 2008, that continue to         |
| the 45-day         | State met its | demonstrate compliance with    |
| timeline or a      | FFY 2005      | the requirements of 34 CFR     |
| timeline that is   | target of     | §300.515(a).                   |
| properly extended  | 100%.         |                                |
| by the hearing     |               |                                |
| officer at the     |               |                                |
| request of either  |               |                                |
| party.             |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Compliance       |               |                                |
| Indicator\]        |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 18\. Percent of    | The State     | The State provided baseline    |
| hearing requests   | reported      | data, targets and improvement  |
| that went to       | baseline of   | activities and OSEP accepts    |
| resolution         | 27%.          | the SPP for this indicator.    |
| sessions that were |               |                                |
| resolved through   |               |                                |
| resolution session |               |                                |
| settlement         |               |                                |
| agreements.        |               |                                |
|                    |               |                                |
| \[Results          |               |                                |
| Indicator; New\]   |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 19\. Percent of    | The State's   | OSEP looks forward to the      |
| mediations held    | FFY 2005      | State's data demonstrating     |
| that resulted in   | reported data | improvement in performance in  |
| mediation          | for this      | the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
| agreements.        | indicator are | 1, 2008.                       |
|                    | 75% (FFY 2004 |                                |
| \[Results          | data were     |                                |
| Indicator\]        | 75.68). The   |                                |
|                    | State did not |                                |
|                    | meet its FFY  |                                |
|                    | 2005 target   |                                |
|                    | of 76%.       |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+
| 20\. State         | The State's   | OSEP appreciates the State's   |
| reported data (618 | FFY 2005      | efforts in achieving           |
| and State          | reported data | compliance and looks forward   |
| Performance Plan   | for this      | to reviewing data in the FFY   |
| and Annual         | indicator are | 2006 APR, due February 1,      |
| Performance        | 100%. The     | 2008, that continue to         |
| Report) are timely | State met its | demonstrate compliance with    |
| and accurate.      | FFY 2005      | the requirements in IDEA       |
|                    | target of     | section 618 and 34 CFR         |
| \[Compliance       | 100%.         | §§76.720 and 300.601(b).       |
| Indicator\]        |               |                                |
+--------------------+---------------+--------------------------------+