**South Carolina Table B -- Part B**

**Previously Identified Issues**

+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Issue**       | **State             | **OSEP         | **Required  |
|                 | Submission**        | Analysis**     | Action**    |
+=================+=====================+================+=============+
| **Indicator 4** | In its October 2005 | The State      | No further  |
|                 | Progress Report,    | reported data  | action      |
| **34 CFR        | SCDE indicated that | showing full   | required.   |
| §§300           | it cited one of the | correction of  |             |
| .121(d)(3)(ii), | 22 districts that   | the            |             |
| 300.520 and     | it monitored during | previou        |             |
| 300.522**       | the 2003-2004       | sly-identified |             |
|                 | school year for     | noncompliance  |             |
| OSEP's          | noncompliance with  | with the       |             |
| September, 15,  | these requirements, | requirements   |             |
| 2004 letter and | and that the        | at 34 CFR      |             |
| September 22,   | district corrected  | §§300.         |             |
| 2005 response   | the noncompliance   | 121(d)(3)(ii), |             |
| to the State's  | within one year.    | 300.520 and    |             |
| FFY 2003 APR    |                     | 300.522. OSEP  |             |
| required the    |                     | appreciates    |             |
| State to        |                     | the State's    |             |
| submit, by      |                     | efforts in     |             |
| October 15,     |                     | ensuring       |             |
| 2005, data and  |                     | compliance     |             |
| analysis        |                     | with this      |             |
| demonstrating   |                     | requirement.   |             |
| compliance with |                     |                |             |
| the             |                     |                |             |
| requirements at |                     |                |             |
| 34 CFR          |                     |                |             |
| §§300           |                     |                |             |
| .121(d)(3)(ii), |                     |                |             |
| 300.520 and     |                     |                |             |
| 300.522         |                     |                |             |
| (appropriate    |                     |                |             |
| personnel make  |                     |                |             |
| determination   |                     |                |             |
| as to services  |                     |                |             |
| and appropriate |                     |                |             |
| settings for    |                     |                |             |
| students with   |                     |                |             |
| disabilities    |                     |                |             |
| who have been   |                     |                |             |
| suspended and   |                     |                |             |
| expelled).      |                     |                |             |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Indicator     | On pages 1 and 2,   | SCDE provided  | The State   |
| 4A**            | Indicator 4A, of    | data and       | must ensure |
|                 | the SPP, the State  | information    | that the    |
| **34 CFR        | defined             | indicating     | no          |
| §300.146**      | "significant        | that           | ncompliance |
|                 | discrepancy," and   | significant    | with 34 CFR |
| In its FFY 2003 | indicated that it   | discrepancies  | §300.146(b) |
| APR, the State  | was using a         | are occurring  | is          |
| provided        | percentage to       | in the rate of | corrected   |
| information and | accurately          | long-term      | and include |
| data on the     | represent the       | suspensi       | do          |
| suspension      | extent to which     | ons/expulsions | cumentation |
| /expulsion      | students with       | of children    | in the APR, |
| rates of        | disabilities were   | with           | due         |
| children with   | suspended/expelled  | disabilities   | February 1, |
| disabilities,   | in an LEA in        | among local    | 2007, that  |
| but did not     | comparison across   | education      | d           |
| determine if    | LEAs. The State     | agencies       | emonstrates |
| there was a     | reported that it    | (LEAs) in the  | compliance  |
| significant     | would ensure        | State.         | with this   |
| discrepancy     | compliance in the   |                | r           |
| among the rates | LEAs identified as  | The State      | equirement. |
| from different  | having significant  | included in    | This        |
| local education | discrepancies       | its SPP a plan | do          |
| agencies (LEAs) | through its         | to conduct the | cumentation |
| as required by  | monitoring process. | review         | must        |
| 34 CFR          | The State           | required by 34 | include the |
| §300.146.       | rank-ordered LEAs   | CFR            | results of  |
| OSEP's          | based on the        | §300.146(b),   | the State's |
| September 22,   | percentage of       | but had not    | review of   |
| 2005 response   | students with       | yet complied   | policies,   |
| required SCDE   | disabilities who    | with that      | procedures  |
| to provide data | were suspended or   | requirement    | and         |
| and analysis    | expelled greater    | when it        | practices,  |
| demonstrating   | than 10 days. On    | submitted its  | as required |
| compliance with | page 3 of Indicator | SPP.           | by 34 CFR   |
| 34 CFR §300.146 | 4A of the SPP, the  |                | §           |
| or a plan to    | State reported that |                | 300.146(b). |
| correct the     | 10 LEAs were        |                | The State   |
| noncompliance   | significantly above |                | should      |
| as soon as      | the State average   |                | review and, |
| possible and    | 1.60% for           |                | if          |
| not more than   | sus                 |                | necessary   |
| one year after  | pensions/expulsions |                | revise, its |
| OSEP accepts    | for the 2004-2005   |                | improvement |
| the plan.       | reporting period    |                | strategies  |
|                 | and six districts   |                | included in |
|                 | were significantly  |                | the SPP to  |
|                 | above the State     |                | ensure they |
|                 | average of 1.17%.   |                | will enable |
|                 |                     |                | the State   |
|                 | The State also      |                | to include  |
|                 | reported the        |                | data in the |
|                 | actions it has      |                | APR, that   |
|                 | undertaken to       |                | demonstrate |
|                 | comply with 34 CFR  |                | full        |
|                 | §300.146,           |                | compliance  |
|                 | indicating that it  |                | with this   |
|                 | would review and    |                | re          |
|                 | revise existing     |                | quirement.  |
|                 | regulations and     |                | Failure to  |
|                 | policies regarding  |                | demonstrate |
|                 | discipline of       |                | compliance  |
|                 | students with       |                | at that     |
|                 | disabilities.       |                | time may    |
|                 |                     |                | affect      |
|                 |                     |                | OSEP's      |
|                 |                     |                | de          |
|                 |                     |                | termination |
|                 |                     |                | of the      |
|                 |                     |                | State's     |
|                 |                     |                | status      |
|                 |                     |                | under       |
|                 |                     |                | section     |
|                 |                     |                | 616(d) of   |
|                 |                     |                | the IDEA.   |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Indicator 9** | On pages 3 and 4,   | The State      | The State   |
|                 | Indicator 9, of the | included in    | must ensure |
| **34 CFR        | SPP, the State      | its SPP a plan | that the    |
| §300.755**      | indicated that it   | to conduct the | no          |
|                 | would incorporate a | review         | ncompliance |
| The State's FFY | review process into | required by 34 | with        |
| 2003 did not    | the focused         | CFR            | §300.755(b) |
| include the     | monitoring          | §300.755(b),   | is          |
| results of its  | framework, which    | but had not    | corrected   |
| review of       | would include a     | yet complied   | and provide |
| policies,       | review of district  | with that      | data in the |
| procedures, and | policies,           | requirement    | APR due     |
| practices used  | procedures, and     | when it        | February 1, |
| in the          | practices, a        | submitted its  | 2007, that  |
| identification  | self-assessment and | SPP.           | demonstrate |
| and placement   | on-site folder      |                | compliance  |
| of students     | reviews. The State  |                | with this   |
| with            | also provided       |                | r           |
| disabilities to | additional          |                | equirement. |
| ensure that     | information that    |                | This        |
| they were       | could be reviewed   |                | do          |
| consistent with | during the process. |                | cumentation |
| the             |                     |                | must        |
| requirements of | The State indicated |                | include the |
| Part B and were | that data from      |                | results of  |
| race-neutral,   | different sources   |                | the State's |
| for those       | would be used to    |                | review of   |
| districts with  | triangulate data to |                | policies,   |
| significant     | identify systemic   |                | procedures  |
| disp            | issues involved in  |                | and         |
| roportionality. | disproportionate    |                | practices,  |
| In its          | representation due  |                | as required |
| September 22,   | to inappropriate    |                | by 34 CFR   |
| 2005 response,  | identification.     |                | §300.755    |
| OSEP concluded  |                     |                | (b). The    |
| that the State  |                     |                | State       |
| was not         |                     |                | should      |
| complying with  |                     |                | review and, |
| the             |                     |                | if          |
| requirements of |                     |                | necessary   |
| 34 CFR          |                     |                | revise, its |
| §300.755, and   |                     |                | improvement |
| required the    |                     |                | strategies  |
| State to        |                     |                | included in |
| submit, by      |                     |                | the SPP to  |
| December 2,     |                     |                | ensure they |
| 2005, a plan to |                     |                | will enable |
| ensure          |                     |                | the State   |
| correction of   |                     |                | to include  |
| the             |                     |                | data in the |
| noncompliance.  |                     |                | APR, that   |
|                 |                     |                | demonstrate |
|                 |                     |                | full        |
|                 |                     |                | compliance  |
|                 |                     |                | with this   |
|                 |                     |                | r           |
|                 |                     |                | equirement. |
|                 |                     |                | Failure to  |
|                 |                     |                | demonstrate |
|                 |                     |                | compliance  |
|                 |                     |                | at that     |
|                 |                     |                | time may    |
|                 |                     |                | affect      |
|                 |                     |                | OSEP's      |
|                 |                     |                | de          |
|                 |                     |                | termination |
|                 |                     |                | of the      |
|                 |                     |                | State's     |
|                 |                     |                | status      |
|                 |                     |                | under       |
|                 |                     |                | section     |
|                 |                     |                | 616(d) of   |
|                 |                     |                | the IDEA.   |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Indicator     | In its October 2005 | The SPP        | The State   |
| 12**            | Progress Report     | required the   | must ensure |
|                 | (Attachments 2 &    | State to       | that the    |
| **34 CFR        | 3), SCDE provided   | provide the    | no          |
| §300.132(b)**   | OSEP with a copy of | percentage of  | ncompliance |
|                 | the interview       | eligible       | it          |
| OSEP's January  | questions it added  | children       | identified  |
| 2005 letter,    | to its monitoring   | transitioning  | in its      |
| responding to   | protocols regarding | from Part C    | monitoring  |
| SCDE's November | whether extended    | who had an IEP | is          |
| and December    | school year (ESY)   | in effect by   | corrected   |
| 2004 Progress   | services were       | their third    | and include |
| Reports,        | available to        | birthday. As   | data in the |
| accepted SCDE's | children with       | further        | APR, due    |
| plan to ensure  | disabilities who    | discussed in   | February 1, |
| compliance with | turn three during   | Table A, the   | 2007, that  |
| the requirement | the summer and      | State did not  | demonstrate |
| to make FAPE    | whether evaluations | provide        | compliance  |
| available to    | were administered   | baseline data  | with this   |
| Part B eligible | in a timely manner  | that were      | r           |
| children by     | to ensure that IEPs | consistent     | equirement. |
| their third     | are in effect by    | with the       | The State   |
| birthday. In    | the child's third   | required       | should      |
| its FFY 2003    | birthday. The State | measure for    | review and, |
| APR, the State  | further reported    | Indicator 12.  | if          |
| reported that   | that 17% of         | Therefore,     | necessary   |
| 10 of the 20    | three-year old      | OSEP could not | revise, its |
| districts it    | children with       | determine from | improvement |
| monitored in    | disabilities        | the SPP the    | strategies  |
| 2003-2004       | received ESY        | extent to      | included in |
| failed to have  | services during the | which the      | the SPP to  |
| services in     | summer of 2005.     | State has      | ensure they |
| place by the    |                     | ensured        | will enable |
| child's third   | SCDE reported that, | statewide      | the State   |
| birthday,       | in 2003-2004, it    | compliance     | to include  |
| especially for  | cited 14 of the 23  | with the       | data in the |
| children with   | districts it        | requirements   | APR, that   |
| summer          | monitored for       | of 34 CFR      | demonstrate |
| birthdays.      | noncompliance in    | §300.132(b).   | full        |
| OSEP's          | the area of         |                | compliance  |
| September 22,   | services in effect  | The State      | with this   |
| 2005 response   | by the third        | reported that  | re          |
| to the APR      | birthday, and that  | 20 of the 23   | quirement.  |
| required the    | 11 had corrected    | districts that | Failure to  |
| State to        | this issue within   | it monitored   | demonstrate |
| submit, by      | one-year. The State | were in        | compliance  |
| October 15,     | reported that 3     | compliance     | at that     |
| 2005, data and  | districts are still | with the       | time may    |
| analysis        | receiving follow-up | requirements   | affect      |
| (including      | to correct this     | of 34 CFR      | OSEP's      |
| revised         | noncompliance and   | §300.132(b).   | de          |
| monitoring      | that it would not   | This shows an  | termination |
| documents)      | release IDEA        | 87% level of   | of the      |
| demonstrating   | allocations until   | compliance,    | State's     |
| compliance with | issues of           | based on the   | status      |
| this            | noncompliance is    | percentage of  | under       |
| requirement.    | corrected.          | districts in   | section     |
|                 |                     | compliance.    | 616(d) of   |
|                 |                     |                | the IDEA.   |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Indicator     | In its October 17,  | The State      | The State   |
| 15**            | 2005 Progress       | reported that  | must ensure |
|                 | Report, the South   | during         | that this   |
| **34 CFR        | Carolina Department | 2003-2004 it   | no          |
| §300.600**      | of Education (SCDE) | ensured        | ncompliance |
|                 | indicated that it   | correction of  | is          |
| OSEP's          | developed a         | noncompliance  | corrected   |
| September 15,   | tri-leveled system  | within one     | and include |
| 2004 FFY 2002   | of proposed         | year in only   | data in the |
| APR response    | sanctions and       | 50% of the     | APR, due    |
| letter directed | accountability      | LEAs           | February 1, |
| the State to    | measures that are   | monitored.     | 2007, that  |
| provide data    | being used for      | This           | demonstrate |
| and analysis    | noncompliance       | demonstrates   | compliance  |
| demonstrating   | issues not          | noncompliance  | with this   |
| progress toward | corrected within    | with the       | requirement |
| compliance with | one-year.           | State's        | for those   |
| the             |                     | obligation     | districts   |
| requirements at | On page 6 of        | under 34 CFR   | monitored   |
| 34 CFR          | indicator 15 in the | §300.600 and   | in the      |
| §300.600, such  | SPP, SCDE reported  | 20 USC         | 2003-04     |
| that OSEP could | an increase in the  | 1232d(b)(3) to | school year |
| determine       | percentage of       | correct        | (as noted   |
| whether the     | districts that      | identified     | in Table    |
| State's         | corrected issues of | noncompliance. | A). The     |
| monitoring      | noncompliance from  |                | State       |
| system          | 18.5% to 50% for    |                | should      |
| identified all  | the 2003-04 school  |                | review and, |
| Part B          | year and that       |                | if          |
| noncompliance   | sanctions were      |                | necessary   |
| and ensured     | issued to four      |                | revise, its |
| correction      | districts that did  |                | improvement |
| within one year | not meet the        |                | strategies  |
| of              | one-year timeline.  |                | included in |
| identification. |                     |                | the SPP to  |
| OSEP's          | The SPP also        |                | ensure they |
| September 22,   | included a process  |                | will enable |
| 2005 response   | and plan of action  |                | the State   |
| to the State's  | for addressing      |                | to include  |
| FFY 2003 APR    | systemic issues of  |                | data in the |
| required the    | noncompliance.      |                | APR, that   |
| State to        |                     |                | demonstrate |
| provide, within |                     |                | full        |
| 60 days, data   |                     |                | compliance  |
| and analysis    |                     |                | with this   |
| demonstrating   |                     |                | re          |
| compliance with |                     |                | quirement.  |
| the             |                     |                | Failure to  |
| requirements at |                     |                | demonstrate |
| 34 CFR          |                     |                | compliance  |
| §300.600, that  |                     |                | at that     |
| the State       |                     |                | time may    |
| identify and    |                     |                | affect      |
| correct         |                     |                | OSEP's      |
| noncompliance   |                     |                | de          |
| identified      |                     |                | termination |
| through its     |                     |                | of the      |
| monitoring      |                     |                | State's     |
| process.        |                     |                | status      |
|                 |                     |                | under       |
|                 |                     |                | section     |
|                 |                     |                | 616(d) of   |
|                 |                     |                | the IDEA.   |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Indicator     | In its October 17,  | The data       | OSEP looks  |
| 15**            | 2005 Progress       | provided by    | forward to  |
|                 | Report, SCDE        | the State show | reviewing   |
| **34 CFR        | reported that eight | a 91% level of | data in the |
| §§300.24(b)(2)  | of the twenty-two   | compliance     | APR, due    |
| and (9),        | districts were      | with the       | February 1, |
| 300.300 and     | cited for           | requirement at | 2007, that  |
| 300.347(a)(3)** | noncompliance and   | 34 CFR         | demonstrate |
|                 | five corrected      | §§300.24(b)(2) | full        |
| OSEP's          | within one year.    | and (9),       | compliance  |
| September, 15,  | One completed       | 300.300 and    | with this   |
| 2004 letter and | corrective actions  | 300.347(a)(3)  | r           |
| September 22,   | beyond one year and | (two of the 22 | equirement. |
| 2005 response   | two were still      | districts      |             |
| to the State's  | outstanding. SCDE   | monitored      |             |
| FFY 2003 APR    | also reported that  | regarding      |             |
| required the    | these two districts | these          |             |
| State to        | have received       | requirements   |             |
| submit, by      | extensive follow-up | remain in      |             |
| October 15,     | with Corrective     | n              |             |
| 2005, data and  | actions to include  | oncompliance). |             |
| analysis        | training, technical | The State      |             |
| demonstrating   | assistance, and     | further        |             |
| compliance with | follow up folder    | reported that  |             |
| the             | review. The State   | it has         |             |
| requirements at | further reported    | withheld Part  |             |
| 34 CFR          | that it has imposed | B funds from   |             |
| §§300.24(b)(2)  | sanctions           | these          |             |
| and (9),        | (withholding of     | districts to   |             |
| 300.300 and     | IDEA funds) on      | ensure         |             |
| 300.347(a)(3)   | these districts     | correction.    |             |
| (provision of   | until full          | While this     |             |
| psychological   | compliance in       | level of       |             |
| counseling      | ensured.            | compliance is  |             |
| services in     |                     | below 100% and |             |
| accordance with |                     | requires       |             |
| individualized  |                     | continued      |             |
| education       |                     | implementation |             |
| programs        |                     | of improvement |             |
| (IEPs)).        |                     | activities to  |             |
|                 |                     | achieve full   |             |
|                 |                     | compliance,    |             |
|                 |                     | OSEP           |             |
|                 |                     | recognizes the |             |
|                 |                     | effort made by |             |
|                 |                     | the State in   |             |
|                 |                     | working toward |             |
|                 |                     | compliance     |             |
|                 |                     | with this      |             |
|                 |                     | requirement.   |             |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+
| **Indicator     | The State's October | The State      | OSEP looks  |
| 17**            | 2005 Progress       | reported data  | forward to  |
|                 | Report included a   | showing full   | reviewing   |
| **34 CFR        | copy of due process | correction of  | data in the |
| §300.511**      | logs demonstrating  | the            | APR, due    |
|                 | that all hearings   | previou        | February 1, |
| OSEP's          | and reviews during  | sly-identified | 2007,       |
| September 22,   | the period of       | noncompliance  | de          |
| 2005 letter     | 7/1/2003-6/30/2004  | with the       | monstrating |
| required SCDE   | resulted in written | requirements   | continuing  |
| to submit data  | decisions within    | at 34 CFR      | compliance  |
| and analysis    | required timelines, | §300.511. OSEP | with this   |
| demonstrating   | including           | appreciates    | r           |
| compliance with | extensions. On page | the State's    | equirement. |
| the             | 2 of Indicator 2 of | efforts in     |             |
| requirements at | the SPP, the State  | ensuring       |             |
| 34 CFR §300.511 | provided data       | compliance     |             |
| that due        | showing that all    | with this      |             |
| process         | due process         | requirement.   |             |
| hearings        | hearings and State  |                |             |
| decisions are   | level reviews were  |                |             |
| issued to       | completed in a      |                |             |
| parties within  | timely manner for   |                |             |
| timelines.      | 2004-05.            |                |             |
+-----------------+---------------------+----------------+-------------+