# North Carolina

# Table B -- Part B

# Previously Identified Issues 

+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| **Issue**               | **State        | **OSEP     | **Required |
|                         | Submission**   | Analysis** | Action**   |
+=========================+================+============+============+
| **Indicator 3**         | In its         | The State  | As part of |
|                         | December 24,   | has set    | its        |
| **34 CFR §§300.138,     | 2005 Progress  | forth a    | submission |
| 300.139 and             | Report, the    | plan to    | for        |
| 300.347(a)(5)**         | State          | ensure     | Indicator  |
|                         | indicated that | c          | 3 in the   |
| In its October 24, 2005 | information    | ompliance. | APR due    |
| verification visit      | regarding the  |            | February   |
| letter, OSEP found that | need to offer  |            | 1, 2007,   |
| NCDPI had not ensured   | alternate      |            | the State  |
| compliance with the     | assessments    |            | must       |
| requirements of 34 CFR  | for students   |            | include    |
| §§300.138, 300.139 and  | with           |            | doc        |
| 300.347(a)(5), as they  | disabilities   |            | umentation |
| apply to districtwide   | who are unable |            | that shows |
| assessments. NCDPI      | to take the    |            | that the   |
| special education and   | regular paper  |            | State is   |
| assessment              | and pencil     |            | ensuring   |
| administrators and      | test and the   |            | compliance |
| staff informed OSEP     | need to report |            | with the   |
| that: (1) while NCDPI   | the results    |            | re         |
| is aware that some      | for students   |            | quirements |
| school districts        | assessed with  |            | of 34 CFR  |
| administer districtwide | alternate      |            | §§300.138, |
| assessments (in         | assessments on |            | 300.139    |
| addition to the         | district-wide  |            | and        |
| required statewide      | assessments    |            | 300.       |
| assessments), NCDPI did | has been       |            | 347(a)(5), |
| not know which          | presented by   |            | as they    |
| districts administer    | the State at   |            | apply to   |
| such districtwide       | several        |            | di         |
| assessments; and (2)    | statewide      |            | strictwide |
| NCDPI has not monitored | conferences.   |            | as         |
| to ensure compliance    | The State has  |            | sessments. |
| with the requirements   | also shared    |            | That       |
| of 34 CFR §§300.138,    | information    |            | doc        |
| 300.139 and             | about the OSEP |            | umentation |
| 300.347(a)(5) as they   | finding with   |            | must       |
| apply to districtwide   | local          |            | include a  |
| assessments. OSEP's     | s              |            | d          |
| letter required the     | uperintendents |            | escription |
| State to submit, within | at various     |            | of the     |
| 60 days from the date   | regional       |            | State      |
| of the letter, either:  | meetings       |            | procedures |
| (1) documentation that  | across the     |            | for        |
| NCDPI has corrected     | state.         |            | monitoring |
| this area of            | Regional       |            | regarding  |
| noncompliance; or (2)   | Accountability |            | such       |
| the State's plan for    | Coordinators   |            | c          |
| ensuring, within one    | (RACs) have    |            | ompliance, |
| year from the date on   | shared similar |            | a summary  |
| which OSEP approves the | information    |            | of the     |
| plan, that NCDPI is     | with their     |            | State's    |
| monitoring to ensure    | respective LEA |            | findings,  |
| that school districts   | Test           |            | and, for   |
| that administer         | Coordinators.  |            | any        |
| districtwide            |                |            | findings   |
| assessments are         | The NCDPI      |            | of         |
| complying with the      | anticipates    |            | nonc       |
| requirements or 34 CFR  | developing a   |            | ompliance, |
| §§300.138, 300.139 and  | survey after   |            | the status |
| 300.347(a)(5), as they  | the first of   |            | of         |
| apply to districtwide   | January 2006   |            | c          |
| assessments.            | that will be   |            | orrection. |
|                         | completed by   |            |            |
|                         | the LEAs to    |            |            |
|                         | determine the  |            |            |
|                         | extent to      |            |            |
|                         | which the IDEA |            |            |
|                         | requirements   |            |            |
|                         | are being      |            |            |
|                         | followed.      |            |            |
|                         |                |            |            |
|                         | The State also |            |            |
|                         | described      |            |            |
|                         | other steps    |            |            |
|                         | that it is     |            |            |
|                         | taking to      |            |            |
|                         | ensure         |            |            |
|                         | compliance.    |            |            |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| ## Indicator 4A         | On page 16 of  | The State  | The State  |
|                         | the SPP, the   | has not    | must       |
| **34 CFR §300.146(b)**  | State reported | provided   | ensure     |
|                         | its            | doc        | that this  |
| 34 CFR §300.146         | determination  | umentation | non        |
| requires that States    | that: (1)      | of         | compliance |
| examine data to         | 11.3% of the   | compliance | is         |
| determine if            | LEAs have      | with the   | corrected  |
| significant             | significant    | re         | within one |
| discrepancies are       | discrepancies  | quirements | year of    |
| occurring in the rates  | in the rates   | of 34 CFR  | its        |
| of long-term            | of suspension  | §3         | iden       |
| suspensions and         | and expulsions | 00.146(b). | tification |
| expulsions of children  | of children    |            | and        |
| with disabilities       | with           |            | include    |
| either among local      | disabilities   |            | doc        |
| education agencies      | when only      |            | umentation |
| (LEAs) in the State or  | "traditional"  |            | in the     |
| compared to the rates   | LEAs are       |            | APR, due   |
| for nondisabled         | included; and  |            | February   |
| children within the     | (2) 6.1% of    |            | 1, 2007,   |
| agencies. Where the     | the LEAs have  |            | that       |
| State determines that   | significant    |            | d          |
| significant             | discrepancies  |            | emonstrate |
| discrepancies are       | when Charter   |            | compliance |
| occurring, it must      | Schools and    |            | with this  |
| review and, if          | traditional    |            | re         |
| appropriate, revise (or | LEAs are       |            | quirement. |
| require the affected    | included. The  |            | This       |
| LEA to revise) its      | State also     |            | doc        |
| policies, procedures,   | addressed, in  |            | umentation |
| and practices related   | its December   |            | must       |
| to the development and  | 24, 2005       |            | include    |
| implementation of       | Progress       |            | the        |
| individualized          | Report, its    |            | results of |
| education programs      | activities     |            | the        |
| (IEPs), the use of      | related to     |            | State's    |
| behavioral              | suspension and |            | review of  |
| interventions, and      | expulsion.     |            | policies,  |
| procedural safeguards   |                |            | procedures |
| to ensure that          | However, the   |            | and        |
| policies, procedures    | State did not  |            | practices, |
| practices comply with   | address, in    |            | as         |
| Part B.                 | either         |            | required   |
|                         | document, the  |            | by 34 CFR  |
| The State's FFY 2003    | provisions of  |            | §3         |
| APR, however, did not   | 34 CFR         |            | 00.146(b). |
| include any information | §300.146(b),   |            | The State  |
| indicating that the     | which          |            | should     |
| State examined data     | requires,      |            | review     |
| from the LEAs that it   | where the      |            | and, if    |
| used in assembling the  | State          |            | necessary  |
| State-level data to     | determines     |            | revise,    |
| determine whether       | that           |            | its        |
| significant             | significant    |            | i          |
| discrepancies were      | discrepancies  |            | mprovement |
| occurring in the LEAs   | are occurring, |            | strategies |
| based on either one of  | that it review |            | included   |
| the comparisons         | and, if        |            | in the SPP |
| described above, as     | appropriate,   |            | to ensure  |
| directed by the FFY     | revise (or     |            | they will  |
| 2003 APR instructions.  | require the    |            | enable the |
|                         | affected LEA   |            | State to   |
| OSEP's October 24, 2005 | to revise) its |            | include    |
| letter required the     | policies,      |            | data in    |
| State to submit, within | procedures,    |            | the APR,   |
| 60 days, either: (1)    | and practices  |            | that       |
| evidence that it was    | related to the |            | d          |
| complying with the      | development    |            | emonstrate |
| requirements of 34 CFR  | and            |            | full       |
| §300.146; or (2) a plan | implementation |            | compliance |
| to ensure correction of | of IEPs, the   |            | with this  |
| the noncompliance as    | use of         |            | req        |
| soon as possible and    | behavioral     |            | uirement.  |
| not more than one year  | interventions, |            | Failure to |
| after OSEP accepted the | and procedural |            | d          |
| plan.                   | safeguards to  |            | emonstrate |
|                         | ensure that    |            | compliance |
|                         | policies,      |            | at that    |
|                         | procedures     |            | time may   |
|                         | practices      |            | affect     |
|                         | comply with    |            | OSEP's     |
|                         | Part B.        |            | det        |
|                         |                |            | ermination |
|                         |                |            | of the     |
|                         |                |            | State's    |
|                         |                |            | status     |
|                         |                |            | under      |
|                         |                |            | section    |
|                         |                |            | 616(d) of  |
|                         |                |            | the IDEA.  |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| **Indicator 9**         | The State did  | The State  | The State  |
|                         | not provide    | included   | must       |
| **34 CFR §300.755(b)**  | documentation  | in its SPP | ensure     |
|                         | of compliance  | a plan to  | that this  |
| 34 CFR §300.755(b)      | with the       | conduct    | non        |
| requires that when a    | requirements   | the review | compliance |
| State determines that   | of 34 CFR      | required   | is         |
| there is significant    | §300.755(b),   | by 34 CFR  | corrected  |
| disproportionality      | including the  | §3         | within one |
| regarding the           | results of its | 00.755(b), | year of    |
| identification or       | review under   | but had    | its        |
| educational placement   | those          | not yet    | iden       |
| of children with        | requirements.  | complied   | tification |
| disabilities, the State | On page 35 of  | with that  | and        |
| must provide for the    | the SPP, the   | r          | include    |
| review and, if          | State set      | equirement | doc        |
| appropriate, revision   | forth its plan | when it    | umentation |
| of the policies,        | for reporting  | submitted  | in the     |
| procedures, and         | on the results | its SPP.   | APR, due   |
| practices comply with   | of its review  |            | February   |
| the requirements of     | of policies,   |            | 1, 2007,   |
| Part B.                 | procedures,    |            | that       |
|                         | and practices  |            | d          |
| OSEP's October 24, 2005 | to ensure      |            | emonstrate |
| letter responding to    | correction of  |            | compliance |
| NCDPI's FFY 2003 APR    | the            |            | with this  |
| required the State to,  | noncompliance. |            | re         |
| within 60 days, either: | The plan       |            | quirement. |
| (1) provide             | includes       |            | This       |
| documentation of        | resources,     |            | doc        |
| compliance with the     | targets, and   |            | umentation |
| review requirements of  | timelines to   |            | must       |
| 34 CFR §300.755(b), and | address the    |            | include    |
| the results of such     | requirement.   |            | the        |
| review; or (2) specify  |                |            | results of |
| what steps the State    |                |            | the        |
| would take to implement |                |            | State's    |
| its plan to report on   |                |            | review of  |
| the results of its      |                |            | policies,  |
| review of policies,     |                |            | procedures |
| procedures, and         |                |            | and        |
| practices, as outlined  |                |            | practices, |
| above, and to ensure    |                |            | as         |
| correction of the       |                |            | required   |
| noncompliance.          |                |            | by 34 CFR  |
|                         |                |            | §3         |
|                         |                |            | 00.755(b). |
|                         |                |            | The State  |
|                         |                |            | should     |
|                         |                |            | review     |
|                         |                |            | and, if    |
|                         |                |            | necessary  |
|                         |                |            | revise,    |
|                         |                |            | its        |
|                         |                |            | i          |
|                         |                |            | mprovement |
|                         |                |            | strategies |
|                         |                |            | included   |
|                         |                |            | in the SPP |
|                         |                |            | to ensure  |
|                         |                |            | they will  |
|                         |                |            | enable the |
|                         |                |            | State to   |
|                         |                |            | include    |
|                         |                |            | data in    |
|                         |                |            | the APR,   |
|                         |                |            | that       |
|                         |                |            | d          |
|                         |                |            | emonstrate |
|                         |                |            | full       |
|                         |                |            | compliance |
|                         |                |            | with this  |
|                         |                |            | req        |
|                         |                |            | uirement.  |
|                         |                |            | Failure to |
|                         |                |            | d          |
|                         |                |            | emonstrate |
|                         |                |            | compliance |
|                         |                |            | at that    |
|                         |                |            | time may   |
|                         |                |            | affect     |
|                         |                |            | OSEP's     |
|                         |                |            | det        |
|                         |                |            | ermination |
|                         |                |            | of the     |
|                         |                |            | State's    |
|                         |                |            | status     |
|                         |                |            | under      |
|                         |                |            | section    |
|                         |                |            | 616(d) of  |
|                         |                |            | the IDEA.  |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| **Indicators 13 and     | On page 16 of  | The State  | The State  |
| 15**                    | its December   | provided   | must       |
|                         | 24, 2005       | data that  | submit     |
| **34 CFR §§300.600**,   | Progress       | d          | data that  |
| **300.344(b)(1), and    | Report, the    | emonstrate | d          |
| §300.347(b)**           | State reported | continuing | emonstrate |
|                         | that, since    | non        | compliance |
| **20 U.S.C.             | September 20,  | compliance | with these |
| 1232d(b)(3)**           | 2005, it had   | with the   | re         |
|                         | conducted 36   | re         | quirements |
| OSEP's October 2004     | on-site        | quirements | by June 1, |
| letter directed the     | verification   | at: (1) 34 | 2006.      |
| State to submit: (1) as | visits of      | CFR §§300. | Failure to |
| part of its FFY 2003    | LEAs, Charter  | 34 CFR §   | d          |
| APR, an update,         | Schools and    | 300        | emonstrate |
| including current       | State Operated | .344(b)(1) | compliance |
| supporting data and     | Programs that  | (inviting  | at that    |
| analysis, regarding its | completed a    | students   | time may   |
| progress in correcting  | S              | to IEP     | result in  |
| the noncompliance       | elf-Assessment | meetings   | the State  |
| related to inviting     | in 2000-2001.  | where a    | being      |
| students to IEP         |                | purpose is | identified |
| meetings where a        | The Progress   | the        | as a "high |
| purpose is the          | Report also    | con        | risk"      |
| consideration of        | provided that: | sideration | grantee or |
| transition service      | (1) the over   | of         | otherwise  |
| needs or needed         | all compliance | transition | affect the |
| transition services (34 | rate for       | service    | State's    |
| CFR §300.344(b)(1)) and | inviting       | needs or   | FFY 2006   |
| transition-related      | students to    | needed     | grant      |
| content of IEPs (34 CFR | IEP meetings   | transition | award.     |
| §300.347(b)); and (2)   | is 83%; and    | services); |            |
| by July 9, 2005,        | (2) the        | and (2) 34 |            |
| documentation showing   | compliance     | CFR        |            |
| that the State          | rate for       | 300.347(b) |            |
| corrected both areas of | transition     | (          |            |
| noncompliance.          | related        | transition |            |
|                         | content is     | related    |            |
| On pages 65 through 68  | 89%.           | content of |            |
| of the FFY 2003 APR,    |                | IEPs).     |            |
| the State included data |                |            |            |
| and information         |                | The level  |            |
| regarding its           |                | of         |            |
| monitoring findings     |                | compliance |            |
| related to those        |                | reported   |            |
| requirements. Those     |                | was: (1)   |            |
| data showed that the    |                | 83% for    |            |
| State continued to find |                | inviting   |            |
| some LEAs in            |                | students   |            |
| noncompliance in both   |                | to IEP     |            |
| areas. Neither the APR  |                | meetings;  |            |
| nor the July 2005       |                | and (2)    |            |
| Progress Report         |                | 89% for    |            |
| included documentation  |                | transiti   |            |
| regarding the extent to |                | on-related |            |
| which the State was     |                | content of |            |
| effective in ensuring   |                | IEPs. OSEP |            |
| that these LEAs         |                | initially  |            |
| corrected that          |                | identified |            |
| noncompliance within    |                | this       |            |
| one year from           |                | non        |            |
| identification. OSEP's  |                | compliance |            |
| October 24, 2005        |                | in NCDPI's |            |
| response to the APR     |                | June 2002  |            |
| required the State to   |                | I          |            |
| provide, within 60      |                | mprovement |            |
| days, data and analysis |                | Plan.      |            |
| regarding the extent to |                |            |            |
| which it has been       |                |            |            |
| effective in ensuring   |                |            |            |
| that LEAs correct the   |                |            |            |
| noncompliance within    |                |            |            |
| one year from           |                |            |            |
| identification.         |                |            |            |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| **Indicator 15**        | The State's    | The State  | The State  |
|                         | December 24,   | did not    | must       |
| **34 CFR §§300.600 and  | 2005 Progress  | provide    | submit     |
| 300.550(b)**            | Report set     | the        | data that  |
|                         | forth          | required   | d          |
| **20 U.S.C.             | strategies     | i          | emonstrate |
| 1232d(b)(3)**           | that the State | nformation | compliance |
|                         | is             | regarding  | with this  |
| Regulations at 34 CFR   | implementing   | the extent | r          |
| §300.550(b) require     | to ensure      | to which   | equirement |
| that each public agency | compliance     | it has     | by April   |
| ensure: (1) that to the | with the       | been       | 14, 2006.  |
| maximum extent          | requirements   | effective  | Failure to |
| appropriate, children   | regarding      | in         | d          |
| with disabilities,      | placement in   | ensuring   | emonstrate |
| including children in   | the LRE and    | that LEAs  | compliance |
| public or private       | improved       | correct    | at that    |
| institutions or other   | performance.   | non        | time may   |
| care facilities, are    | The State      | compliance | result in  |
| educated with children  | provided no    | with Part  | the State  |
| who are nondisabled;    | information,   | B's LRE    | being      |
| and (2) that special    | in either the  | re         | identified |
| classes, separate       | Progress       | quirements | as a "high |
| schooling or other      | Report or the  | within one | risk"      |
| removal of children     | SPP, regarding | year from  | grantee or |
| with disabilities from  | the extent to  | iden       | otherwise  |
| the regular educational | which it was   | tification | affect the |
| environment occurs only | effective in   |            | State's    |
| if the nature or        | ensuring that  |            | FFY 2006   |
| severity of the         | LEAs correct   |            | grant      |
| disability is such that | noncompliance  |            | award.     |
| education in regular    | with Part B's  |            |            |
| classes with the use of | LRE            |            |            |
| supplementary aids and  | requirements   |            |            |
| services cannot be      | within one     |            |            |
| achieved                | year from      |            |            |
| satisfactorily. In its  | i              |            |            |
| FFY 2003 APR, the State | dentification. |            |            |
| reported that, as       |                |            |            |
| determined through      |                |            |            |
| LEAs' self-assessments  |                |            |            |
| in 2002-2003 and        |                |            |            |
| 2003-2004, "several     |                |            |            |
| LEAs were involved in   |                |            |            |
| non-compliance with     |                |            |            |
| \[the requirements      |                |            |            |
| regarding placement in  |                |            |            |
| the least restrictive   |                |            |            |
| environment (LRE)\] in  |                |            |            |
| the 6-21 age group" for |                |            |            |
| both of those school    |                |            |            |
| years. The State did    |                |            |            |
| not include any data    |                |            |            |
| regarding its           |                |            |            |
| effectiveness in        |                |            |            |
| ensuring that this      |                |            |            |
| noncompliance was       |                |            |            |
| corrected within one    |                |            |            |
| year from               |                |            |            |
| identification. In its  |                |            |            |
| October 24, 2005        |                |            |            |
| response to the APR,    |                |            |            |
| OSEP required that,     |                |            |            |
| within 60 days, the     |                |            |            |
| State provide data and  |                |            |            |
| analysis regarding the  |                |            |            |
| extent to which it was  |                |            |            |
| effective in ensuring   |                |            |            |
| that LEAs correct       |                |            |            |
| noncompliance with Part |                |            |            |
| B's LRE requirements    |                |            |            |
| within one year from    |                |            |            |
| identification.         |                |            |            |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| **Indicators 15**       | On pages 14    | As         | No further |
|                         | and 15 of its  | explained  | action     |
| **34 CFR §§300.600**,   | December 24,   | in the     | required.  |
| **20 U.S.C.             | 2005 Progress  | first      |            |
| 1232d(b)(3)**           | Report, the    | column,    |            |
|                         | State          | OSEP       |            |
| In its 2001             | described its  | identified |            |
| Self-Assessment, the    | efforts to     | this area  |            |
| State reported that     | ensure an      | of         |            |
| "students with          | adequate       | non        |            |
| disabilities who have   | supply of      | compliance |            |
| behavioral issues are   | qualified      | based upon |            |
| not always receiving    | teachers to    | the        |            |
| appropriate services as | meet the needs | State\'s   |            |
| evidenced by the high   | of children    | finding,   |            |
| dropout and suspension  | with           | in its     |            |
| rates due to teacher    | behavioral     | 2001       |            |
| shortages, lack of      | issues and     | Self-A     |            |
| professional training   | ensure that    | ssessment, |            |
| for administrators and  | public         | that       |            |
| general education       | agencies       | "students  |            |
| personnel, and lack of  | provide        | with       |            |
| access to appropriate   | appropriate    | di         |            |
| instruction."           | services to    | sabilities |            |
|                         | these          | who have   |            |
| OSEP's October 2004     | children. The  | behavioral |            |
| letter directed the     | State also     | issues are |            |
| State to submit: (1) as | provided data  | not always |            |
| part of its FFY 2003    | showing        | receiving  |            |
| APR, an update,         | improved       | a          |            |
| including current       | placement and  | ppropriate |            |
| supporting data and     | proficiency    | services   |            |
| analysis, regarding its | data for these | as         |            |
| progress in correcting  | students.      | evidenced  |            |
| the noncompliance       |                | by the     |            |
| related to the          |                | high       |            |
| provision of FAPE to    |                | dropout    |            |
| children with           |                | and        |            |
| disabilities with       |                | suspension |            |
| behavioral issues (34   |                | rates due  |            |
| CFR §300.300); and (2)  |                | to teacher |            |
| by July 9, 2005,        |                | shortages, |            |
| documentation showing   |                | lack of    |            |
| that the State          |                | pr         |            |
| corrected the           |                | ofessional |            |
| noncompliance. Neither  |                | training   |            |
| the FFY 2003 APR nor    |                | for        |            |
| the State's July 2005   |                | admi       |            |
| Progress Report         |                | nistrators |            |
| included documentation  |                | and        |            |
| that the State          |                | general    |            |
| corrected this area of  |                | education  |            |
| noncompliance. OSEP's   |                | personnel, |            |
| October 24, 2005        |                | and lack   |            |
| response to the APR and |                | of access  |            |
| Progress Report         |                | to         |            |
| required the State to   |                | a          |            |
| provide, within 60      |                | ppropriate |            |
| days, documentation     |                | ins        |            |
| that it ensured full    |                | truction." |            |
| correction of the       |                | The State  |            |
| noncompliance.          |                | has        |            |
|                         |                | provided   |            |
|                         |                | doc        |            |
|                         |                | umentation |            |
|                         |                | of the     |            |
|                         |                | improved   |            |
|                         |                | p          |            |
|                         |                | erformance |            |
|                         |                | for these  |            |
|                         |                | students,  |            |
|                         |                | and of the |            |
|                         |                | actions    |            |
|                         |                | that it    |            |
|                         |                | has taken  |            |
|                         |                | to ensure  |            |
|                         |                | that       |            |
|                         |                | teachers   |            |
|                         |                | working    |            |
|                         |                | with these |            |
|                         |                | students   |            |
|                         |                | have the   |            |
|                         |                | skills to  |            |
|                         |                | provide    |            |
|                         |                | a          |            |
|                         |                | ppropriate |            |
|                         |                | in         |            |
|                         |                | struction. |            |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+
| **Indicator 17**        | In its         | The State  | The State  |
|                         | December 24,   | provided   | must       |
| **34 CFR §300.511(a)    | 2005 Progress  | data that  | submit     |
| and (c)**               | Report, the    | d          | data that  |
|                         | State reported | emonstrate | d          |
| 34 CFR §300.511(a) and  | that 21 of the | continuing | emonstrate |
| (c) require that the    | 57 hearing     | non        | compliance |
| final decision in a due | files closed   | compliance | with this  |
| process hearing be      | from July 1,   | with the   | r          |
| reached and mailed to   | 2004 to June   | re         | equirement |
| the parties not later   | 30, 2005 had   | quirements | by April   |
| than 45 days after the  | decisions      | at 34 CFR  | 14, 2006.  |
| receipt of a request    | within 45      | §§         | Failure to |
| for a hearing, and that | days; the      | 300.511(a) | d          |
| a hearing officer may   | State has      | and (c),   | emonstrate |
| grant specific          | acknowledged   | that a     | compliance |
| extensions of time      | that, for      | final      | by June    |
| beyond that period at   | hearings with  | decision   | 30, 2006,  |
| the request of either   | decisions      | in a due   | may result |
| party (in extending the | beyond 45      | process    | in the     |
| timeline, the hearing   | days, it does  | hearing is | State      |
| officer must specify    | not have       | reached    | being      |
| the new date by which   | documentation  | and mailed | identified |
| the decision will be    | of specific    | to the     | as a "high |
| reached and mailed to   | extensions of  | parties    | risk"      |
| the parties).           | the decision   | not later  | grantee or |
|                         | timeline at    | than 45    | otherwise  |
| The State's 2001        | the request of | days after | affect the |
| Self-Assessment         | a party.       | the        | State's    |
| included data showing   |                | receipt of | FFY 2006   |
| noncompliance with the  | In the         | a request  | grant      |
| due process hearing     | Progress       | for a      | award.     |
| timeline requirements   | Report, the    | hearing,   |            |
| of 34 CFR §300.511(a)   | State          | and that a |            |
| and (c). In its October | described the  | hearing    |            |
| 28, 2003 letter, OSEP   | steps it is    | officer    |            |
| required the State to   | taking to      | may grant  |            |
| revise its Improvement  | ensure         | specific   |            |
| Plan to ensure that the | correction of  | extensions |            |
| State could demonstrate | the            | of time    |            |
| full compliance within  | noncompliance. | beyond     |            |
| a reasonable period of  |                | that       |            |
| time, not to exceed one | Page 82 of the | period at  |            |
| year from the date that | SPP states     | the        |            |
| OSEP accepted the       | that: "Twenty  | request of |            |
| revised Plan. On April  | due process    | either     |            |
| 26, 2004, NCDPI         | cases filed    | party (in  |            |
| submitted to OSEP its   | during the     | extending  |            |
| revised Improvement     | 2004-2005      | the        |            |
| Plan. In its June 9,    | school year    | timeline,  |            |
| 2004 letter, OSEP       | remained open  | the        |            |
| accepted the revised    | more 100 days, | hearing    |            |
| Improvement Plan that   | and eight      | officer    |            |
| the State submitted on  | cases remained | must       |            |
| April 26, 2004, and     | open more than | specify    |            |
| required the State to   | 200 days.      | the new    |            |
| submit, no later than   | Extensions of  | date by    |            |
| 30 days following one   | time were not  | which the  |            |
| year from the date of   | documented in  | decision   |            |
| the letter,             | any of the     | will be    |            |
| documentation that it   | cases.         | reached    |            |
| had corrected the       |                | and mailed |            |
| noncompliance.          |                | to the     |            |
|                         |                | parties).  |            |
| The State's FFY 2003    |                | The level  |            |
| APR and OSEP's October  |                | of         |            |
| 24, 2005 verification   |                | compliance |            |
| letter documented       |                | reported   |            |
| continuing              |                | in the SPP |            |
| noncompliance.          |                | was 50%.   |            |
|                         |                | The plan   |            |
| OSEP's October 24, 2005 |                | proposed   |            |
| response to the State's |                | by the     |            |
| FFY 2003 APR required   |                | State in   |            |
| the North Carolina      |                | the        |            |
| Department of Public    |                | Progress   |            |
| Instruction (NCDPI) to  |                | Report     |            |
| submit, within 60 days, |                | would not  |            |
| updated data, and, to   |                | result in  |            |
| the extent that the     |                | compliance |            |
| State could not         |                | by June    |            |
| demonstrate compliance  |                | 30, 2006.  |            |
| with those              |                |            |            |
| requirements, specific  |                |            |            |
| strategies that the     |                |            |            |
| State would implement   |                |            |            |
| to ensure compliance.   |                |            |            |
| OSEP's letter also      |                |            |            |
| required the State to   |                |            |            |
| submit an additional    |                |            |            |
| Progress Report by      |                |            |            |
| April 14, 2006.         |                |            |            |
+-------------------------+----------------+------------+------------+