+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+
| **Issue**     | **State Submission**      | **OSEP    | **Required  |
|               |                           | A         | Action**    |
|               |                           | nalysis** |             |
+===============+===========================+===========+=============+
| **Indicator   | In its discussion of      | The State | In its APR, |
| 4A**          | baseline data for         | set forth | due         |
|               | Indicator 4A in the SPP,  | a plan    | February 1, |
| **Suspension  | the State reported that   | for       | 2007, the   |
| and expulsion | LSSs identified by the    | ensuring  | State must  |
| rates (34 CFR | State as having a         | c         | provide     |
| §300.146)**   | significant discrepancy   | ompliance | evidence    |
|               | in the rates of           | with the  | that it has |
| In its        | suspensions and           | req       | implemented |
| October 13,   | expulsions of children    | uirements | its plan    |
| 2005 APR      | with disabilities are     | of 34 CFR | and ensured |
| letter, OSEP  | required to develop a     | §300.146. | compliance  |
| noted that    | Georgia Continuous        |           | with the    |
| the State did | Improvement Monitoring    |           | r           |
| not meet the  | Process (GCIMP) plan to   |           | equirements |
| requirements  | address                   |           | of 34 CFR   |
| of 34 CFR     | suspension/expulsion that |           | §300.146.   |
| §300.146,     | includes a review and     |           |             |
| because the   | revision of policies,     |           |             |
| State         | procedures and practices. |           |             |
| reported that | GDOE requires the LSS to  |           |             |
| it "asks"     | submit this plan to the   |           |             |
| (rather than  | State, which will verify  |           |             |
| "requires")   | that policies, procedures |           |             |
| local school  | and practices have been   |           |             |
| systems       | revised accordingly.      |           |             |
| (LSSs) to     |                           |           |             |
| review        |                           |           |             |
| policies and  |                           |           |             |
| practices,    |                           |           |             |
| and only when |                           |           |             |
| the State     |                           |           |             |
| selects them  |                           |           |             |
| for focused   |                           |           |             |
| monitoring    |                           |           |             |
| (rather than  |                           |           |             |
| whenever the  |                           |           |             |
| Georgia       |                           |           |             |
| Department of |                           |           |             |
| Education     |                           |           |             |
| (GDOE)        |                           |           |             |
| determines    |                           |           |             |
| that there is |                           |           |             |
| a significant |                           |           |             |
| discrepancy   |                           |           |             |
| in their      |                           |           |             |
| discipline    |                           |           |             |
| data). OSEP   |                           |           |             |
| required GDOE |                           |           |             |
| to submit a   |                           |           |             |
| plan to meet  |                           |           |             |
| the           |                           |           |             |
| requirements  |                           |           |             |
| of 34 CFR     |                           |           |             |
| §300.146      |                           |           |             |
| within a      |                           |           |             |
| reasonable    |                           |           |             |
| period of     |                           |           |             |
| time not to   |                           |           |             |
| exceed one    |                           |           |             |
| year from the |                           |           |             |
| date that     |                           |           |             |
| OSEP accepted |                           |           |             |
| the plan.     |                           |           |             |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+
| **Indicator   | In its discussion of      | The State | OSEP looks  |
| 9**           | Indicator 9 in the SPP    | reported  | forward to  |
|               | and the November 29, 2005 | that it   | reviewing   |
| **Dispr       | cover letter, GDOE        | revised   | the State's |
| oportionality | reported that it changed  | its       | updated     |
| (34 CFR       | the wording of its        | Pe        | data for    |
| §             | performance goal          | rformance | Indicator 9 |
| 300.755(b))** | regarding                 | Goal      | in the APR, |
|               | disproportionality to     | regarding | due         |
| OSEP's        | read, "Decrease the       | d         | February 1, |
| October 13,   | disproportionate          | isproport | 2007.       |
| 2005 APR      | representation of         | ionality, |             |
| letter        | students with             | that the  |             |
| required the  | disabilities due to       | LSSs had  |             |
| State to: (1) | inappropriate policies,   | undergone |             |
| desist from   | procedures and            | reviews   |             |
| enforcing the | practices."               | of        |             |
| numerical     |                           | policies  |             |
| performance   | In its response to        | p         |             |
| goal in LSSs, | Indicator 9 in the SPP,   | rocedures |             |
| regarding     | GDOE reported that its    | and       |             |
| dispro        | review of data for the    | p         |             |
| portionality; | 2004-2005 school year     | ractices, |             |
| (2) focus its | identified 132 LSSs with  | and that  |             |
| performance   | a potential for           | revisions |             |
| measures on   | disproportionality due to | were      |             |
| the required  | inappropriate policies,   | required, |             |
| reviews, and, | procedures and practices. | where     |             |
| if            | The State reported that   | app       |             |
| appropriate,  | those systems underwent a | ropriate, |             |
| revision of   | review of their policies, | and       |             |
| policies,     | procedures and practices  | verified  |             |
| procedures    | and the State verified    | by the    |             |
| and           | that any necessary        | State.    |             |
| practices;    | changes were implemented. |           |             |
| and (3)       |                           |           |             |
| submit to     |                           |           |             |
| OSEP data and |                           |           |             |
| information   |                           |           |             |
| on the        |                           |           |             |
| results of    |                           |           |             |
| the State's   |                           |           |             |
| review and,   |                           |           |             |
| if            |                           |           |             |
| appropriate,  |                           |           |             |
| revisions of  |                           |           |             |
| the policies, |                           |           |             |
| procedures    |                           |           |             |
| and           |                           |           |             |
| practices.    |                           |           |             |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+
| **Indicator   | In its discussion of      | The State | The State   |
| 12**          | Indicator 12 in the 2005  | submitted | must ensure |
|               | SPP, GDOE reported that   | the data  | that this   |
| **Transition  | 88% of the children       | required  | no          |
| of children   | referred by Part C prior  | by OSEP's | ncompliance |
| from Part C   | to age three, that were   | October   | is          |
| to preschool  | found eligible for Part   | 2005      | corrected   |
| programs (34  | B, had an IEP developed   | letter.   | within one  |
| CFR           | and implemented by their  | Those     | year of its |
| §300.132)**   | third birthdays. (See     | data      | ide         |
|               | Table A for the           | indicated | ntification |
| OSEP's        | discussion of unreported  | a         | and include |
| October 13,   | data elements for         | c         | data in the |
| 2005 APR      | Indicator 12.)            | ompliance | APR, due    |
| letter        |                           | level of  | February 1, |
| required the  |                           | 88% for   | 2007, that  |
| State to      |                           | Indicator | demonstrate |
| submit        |                           | 12 in the | compliance  |
| responsive    |                           | SPP,      | with this   |
| baseline data |                           | spe       | r           |
| regarding the |                           | cifically | equirement. |
| percentage of |                           | the       | The State   |
| children      |                           | re        | should      |
| referred by   |                           | quirement | review and, |
| Part C prior  |                           | at 34 CFR | if          |
| to age three, |                           | §3        | necessary   |
| who are found |                           | 00.132(b) | revise, its |
| eligible for  |                           | (Sect.    | improvement |
| Part B, and   |                           | 612(a)(9) | strategies  |
| have an IEP   |                           | of the    | in the SPP  |
| developed and |                           | IDEA),    | to ensure   |
| implemented   |                           | that an   | they will   |
| by their      |                           | IEP or,   | enable the  |
| third         |                           | if        | State to    |
| birthdays.    |                           | app       | include     |
|               |                           | ropriate, | data in the |
|               |                           | an IFSP,  | APR, that   |
|               |                           | has been  | demonstrate |
|               |                           | developed | full        |
|               |                           | and is    | compliance  |
|               |                           | being     | with this   |
|               |                           | im        | re          |
|               |                           | plemented | quirement.  |
|               |                           | by the    | Failure to  |
|               |                           | third     | demonstrate |
|               |                           | birthday  | compliance  |
|               |                           | of a      | at that     |
|               |                           | child     | time may    |
|               |                           | with a    | affect      |
|               |                           | d         | OSEP's      |
|               |                           | isability | de          |
|               |                           | who       | termination |
|               |                           | par       | of the      |
|               |                           | ticipated | State's     |
|               |                           | in the    | status      |
|               |                           | Part C    | under       |
|               |                           | program   | section     |
|               |                           | and who   | 616(d) of   |
|               |                           | will      | the IDEA.   |
|               |                           | pa        | (See Table  |
|               |                           | rticipate | A for the   |
|               |                           | in a      | discussion  |
|               |                           | preschool | of          |
|               |                           | program   | unreported  |
|               |                           | under     | data        |
|               |                           | Part B.   | elements    |
|               |                           |           | for         |
|               |                           |           | Indicator   |
|               |                           |           | 12.)        |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+
| **Indicator   | In its discussion of      | The State | OSEP looks  |
| 15**          | Indicator 15 in the 2005  | has       | forward to  |
|               | SPP, the State reported   | provided  | reviewing   |
| **General     | that it conducts record   | clar      | data in the |
| Supervision** | reviews (as part of its   | ification | APR, due    |
|               | technical assistance      | that it   | February 1, |
| In its FFY    | activity) with at least   | is        | 2007,       |
| 2003 APR,     | one-fifth of the LSSs in  | ensuring  | de          |
| GDOE          | conjunction with a team   | c         | monstrating |
| indicated     | from the LSS and that     | orrection | that        |
| that          | "areas for correction are | of all    | no          |
| correction    | determined to be systemic | nonc      | ncompliance |
| plans are     | when thirty percent of    | ompliance | is being    |
| "determined   | the records reviewed      | i         | corrected   |
| when thirty   | contain the same          | dentified | within one  |
| percent of    | findings." GDOE further   | through   | year of     |
| the records   | reported in the November  | its       | iden        |
| reviewed      | 29, 2005 cover letter to  | records   | tification. |
| contain the   | the SPP, that when it     | review    | (See Table  |
| same          | conducts on-site Record   | process.  | A for       |
| findings."    | Reviews, GDOE and the LSS |           | discussion  |
|               | together develop a        |           | of data     |
| OSEP's        | Corrective Action Plan    |           | issues      |
| October 2005  | (CAP) to address both     |           | related to  |
| response      | isolated and systemic     |           | Indicator   |
| required GDOE | issues, and the CAP       |           | 15.)        |
| to clarify    | includes the items of     |           |             |
| that it is    | noncompliance, plan for   |           |             |
| ensuring      | correction and timeline   |           |             |
| correction of | for correction. GDOE      |           |             |
| all           | reported that in          |           |             |
| noncompliance | 2004-2005, thirty-nine    |           |             |
| identified    | out of forty LSSs         |           |             |
| through its   | selected for on-site      |           |             |
| records       | record reviews developed  |           |             |
| review        | CAPs to address           |           |             |
| process.      | compliance issues for     |           |             |
|               | correction. (See Table A  |           |             |
|               | for discussion of data    |           |             |
|               | issues related to         |           |             |
|               | Indicator 15.)            |           |             |
+---------------+---------------------------+-----------+-------------+