Pennsylvania 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 | OSEP looks forward to the        |
|     youth with IEPs | FFY 2005    | State's data demonstrating       |
|     graduating from | reported    | improvement in performance in    |
|     high school     | data for    | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
|     with a regular  | this        | 1, 2008.                         |
|     diploma         | indicator   |                                  |
|     compared to     | are 91.79%. | The State did not include the    |
|     percent of all  | This        | actual numbers used in the       |
|     youth in the    | represents  | calculations, as instructed. The |
|     State           | slippage    | State must include this          |
|     graduating with | from the    | information for the FFY 2006     |
|     a regular       | State's FFY | year in the FFY 2006 APR, due    |
|     diploma.        | 2004        | February 1, 2008.                |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
| \[Results           | data of     |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | 92.50%. The |                                  |
|                     | State did   |                                  |
|                     | not meet    |                                  |
|                     | its FFY     |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 92.55%.  |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 2.  Percent of      | The State's | OSEP looks forward to the        |
|     youth with IEPs | FFY 2005    | State's data demonstrating       |
|     dropping out of | reported    | improvement in performance in    |
|     high school     | data for    | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
|     compared to the | this        | 1, 2008.                         |
|     percent of all  | indicator   |                                  |
|     youth in the    | are 7.36%.  | The State did not include the    |
|     State dropping  | This        | actual numbers used in the       |
|     out of high     | represents  | calculations, as instructed. The |
|     school.         | slippage    | State must include this          |
|                     | from the    | information for the FFY 2006     |
| \[Results           | State's FFY | year in the FFY 2006 APR, due    |
| Indicator\]         | 2004        | February 1, 2008.                |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data of     |                                  |
|                     | 6.80%. The  |                                  |
|                     | State did   |                                  |
|                     | not meet    |                                  |
|                     | its FFY     |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 6.75%.   |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation   | The State's | The State met its targets and    |
| and performance of  | FFY 2005    | OSEP appreciates the State's     |
| children with       | reported    | efforts to improve performance.  |
| disabilities on     | data for    |                                  |
| statewide           | this        |                                  |
| assessments:        | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | for grade   |                                  |
| A. Percent of       | span 3      |                                  |
| districts that have | through 5   |                                  |
| a disability        | are 62.3%.  |                                  |
| subgroup that meets | The State   |                                  |
| the State's minimum | met its FFY |                                  |
| "n" size meeting    | 2005 target |                                  |
| the State's AYP     | of 28.70%.  |                                  |
| objectives for      |             |                                  |
| progress for        | The State's |                                  |
| disability          | FFY 2005    |                                  |
| subgroup.           | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data for    |                                  |
| \[Results           | this        |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | for grade   |                                  |
|                     | span 6      |                                  |
|                     | through 8   |                                  |
|                     | are 52.9%.  |                                  |
|                     | The State   |                                  |
|                     | met its FFY |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 18.70%.  |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     | The State's |                                  |
|                     | FFY 2005    |                                  |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data for    |                                  |
|                     | this        |                                  |
|                     | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | for grade   |                                  |
|                     | span 9      |                                  |
|                     | through 12  |                                  |
|                     | are 28.7%.  |                                  |
|                     | The State   |                                  |
|                     | met its FFY |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 13.40%.  |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation   | The State's | The State met its target and     |
| and performance of  | FFY 2005    | OSEP appreciates the State's     |
| children with       | reported    | efforts to improve performance.  |
| disabilities on     | data for    |                                  |
| statewide           | this        |                                  |
| assessments:        | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | are 97.4%.  |                                  |
| B. Participation    | The State   |                                  |
| rate for children   | met its FFY |                                  |
| with IEPs in a      | 2005 target |                                  |
| regular assessment  | of 95.15%.  |                                  |
| with no             |             |                                  |
| accommodations;     |             |                                  |
| regular assessment  |             |                                  |
| with                |             |                                  |
| accommodations;     |             |                                  |
| alternate           |             |                                  |
| assessment against  |             |                                  |
| grade level         |             |                                  |
| standards;          |             |                                  |
| alternate           |             |                                  |
| assessment against  |             |                                  |
| alternate           |             |                                  |
| achievement         |             |                                  |
| standards.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 3.  Participation   | The State's | The State met its targets and    |
|     and performance | FFY 2005    | OSEP appreciates the State's     |
|     of children     | reported    | efforts to improve performance.  |
|     with            | data for    |                                  |
|     disabilities on | this        |                                  |
|     statewide       | indicator   |                                  |
|     assessments:    | regarding   |                                  |
|                     | reading     |                                  |
| C. Proficiency rate | proficiency |                                  |
| for children with   | are 28.3%.  |                                  |
| IEPs against grade  | The State   |                                  |
| level standards and | met its FFY |                                  |
| alternate           | 2005 target |                                  |
| achievement         | of 25.8%.   |                                  |
| standards.          |             |                                  |
|                     | The State's |                                  |
| \[Results           | FFY 2005    |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data for    |                                  |
|                     | this        |                                  |
|                     | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | regarding   |                                  |
|                     | math        |                                  |
|                     | proficiency |                                  |
|                     | are 32.4%.  |                                  |
|                     | The State   |                                  |
|                     | met its FFY |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 26.2%.   |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 4\. Rates of        | The State's | The State revised the targets    |
| suspension and      | FFY 2005    | and improvement activities for   |
| expulsion:          | reported    | this indicator in its SPP and    |
|                     | data for    | OSEP accepts those revisions.    |
| A. Percent of       | this        |                                  |
| districts           | indicator   | The State revised the method by  |
| identified by the   | are 5.2%.   | which it determines whether a    |
| State as having a   | The State   | significant discrepancy exists.  |
| significant         | did not     | Under the new formula, the State |
| discrepancy in the  | meet its    | identifies a significant         |
| rates of            | FFY 2005    | discrepancy if a district has a  |
| suspensions and     | target of   | suspension and expulsion rate    |
| expulsions of       | 0.0%.       | for children with disabilities   |
| children with       |             | greater than two times the State |
| disabilities for    |             | rate. Using this formula, the    |
| greater than 10     |             | State determined that 5.2% of    |
| days in a school    |             | districts in the State exhibited |
| year; and           |             | significant discrepancies.       |
|                     |             | However, the State did not       |
| \[Results           |             | describe how the State reviewed, |
| Indicator\]         |             | and if appropriate revised (or   |
|                     |             | required the affected LEAs to    |
|                     |             | revise) its 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, as     |
|                     |             | required by 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. (The review for LEAs        |
|                     |             | identified in the FFY 2006 APR   |
|                     |             | may occur either during or after |
|                     |             | the FFY 2006 reporting period,   |
|                     |             | so long as the State describes   |
|                     |             | that review in the FFY 2006      |
|                     |             | APR.)                            |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 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      | The State's | The State revised its targets    |
| children with IEPs  | FFY 2005    | and improvement activities for   |
| aged 6 through 21:  | reported    | this indicator and OSEP accepts  |
|                     | data for    | these revisions.                 |
| A. Removed from     | Indicator   |                                  |
| regular class less  | 5A are      | The State met its targets for    |
| than 21% of the     | 46.5%. The  | Indicators 5A and 5B, and OSEP   |
| day;                | State met   | appreciates the State's efforts  |
|                     | its FFY     | to improve performance. OSEP     |
| B. Removed from     | 2005 target | looks forward to the State's     |
| regular class       | of 43.7%.   | data demonstrating improvement   |
| greater than 60% of |             | in performance for 5C in the FFY |
| the day; or         | The State's | 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.  |
|                     | FFY 2005    |                                  |
| C. Served in public | reported    |                                  |
| or private separate | data for    |                                  |
| schools,            | Indicator   |                                  |
| residential         | 5B are      |                                  |
| placements, or      | 14.4%. The  |                                  |
| homebound or        | State met   |                                  |
| hospital            | its FFY     |                                  |
| placements.         | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 16.1%.   |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | The State's |                                  |
|                     | FFY 2005    |                                  |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data for    |                                  |
|                     | Indicator   |                                  |
|                     | 5C are      |                                  |
|                     | 4.4%. The   |                                  |
|                     | State did   |                                  |
|                     | not meet    |                                  |
|                     | its FFY     |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 4.1%.    |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 6\. Percent of      | The State's | The State revised its            |
| preschool children  | FFY 2005    | improvement activities for this  |
| with IEPs who       | reported    | indicator and OSEP accepts these |
| received special    | data for    | revisions.                       |
| education and       | this        |                                  |
| related services in | indicator   | The State met its target and     |
| settings with       | are 49.15%. | OSEP appreciates the State's     |
| typically           | The State   | efforts to improve performance.  |
| developing peers    | met its FFY |                                  |
| (i.e., early        | 2005 target | OSEP's March 13, 2006, FFY 2004  |
| childhood settings, | of 47.5%.   | SPP response letter required the |
| home, and part-time |             | State to include in the February |
| early               |             | 1, 2007 APR clarification        |
| childhood/part-time |             | regarding the extent, if any, to |
| early childhood     |             | which itinerant services outside |
| special education   |             | of the home are provided in      |
| settings).          |             | inclusive settings, in reporting |
|                     |             | its performance on this          |
| \[Results           |             | indicator in the APR, due        |
| Indicator\]         |             | February 1, 2007. Pennsylvania   |
|                     |             | addressed the issue by           |
|                     |             | clarifying that it determined    |
|                     |             | that its reporting would not     |
|                     |             | include itinerant services in    |
|                     |             | its calculation of students      |
|                     |             | served in inclusive settings.    |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | Please note that, due to changes |
|                     |             | in the 618 State-reported data   |
|                     |             | collection, this indicator will  |
|                     |             | change for the FFY 2006 APR, due |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008. States will be |
|                     |             | required to describe how they    |
|                     |             | will collect valid and reliable  |
|                     |             | data to provide baseline and     |
|                     |             | targets in the FFY 2007 APR, due |
|                     |             | February 1, 2009.                |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 7\. Percent of      | The State   | The State reported the required  |
| preschool children  | provided    | entry data and activities. The   |
| with IEPs who       | entry data. | State must provide progress data |
| demonstrate         |             | and improvement activities with  |
| improved:           |             | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
|                     |             | 1, 2008.                         |
| A.  Positive        |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
|    social-emotional |             |                                  |
|     skills          |             |                                  |
|     (including      |             |                                  |
|     social          |             |                                  |
|     relationships); |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| B.  Acquisition and |             |                                  |
|     use of          |             |                                  |
|     knowledge and   |             |                                  |
|     skills          |             |                                  |
|     (including      |             |                                  |
|     early language/ |             |                                  |
|     communication   |             |                                  |
|     and early       |             |                                  |
|     literacy); and  |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| C.  Use of          |             |                                  |
|     appropriate     |             |                                  |
|     behaviors to    |             |                                  |
|     meet their      |             |                                  |
|     needs.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 8\. Percent of      | The State   | > The State provided baseline    |
| parents with a      | provided    | > data, targets and improvement  |
| child receiving     | FFY 2005    | > activities and OSEP accepts    |
| special education   | baseline    | > the SPP for this indicator.    |
| services who report | data of     |                                  |
| that schools        | 35%.        |                                  |
| facilitated parent  |             |                                  |
| involvement as a    |             |                                  |
| means of improving  |             |                                  |
| services and        |             |                                  |
| results for         |             |                                  |
| children with       |             |                                  |
| disabilities.       |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **Monitoring        |             |                                  |
| Priority:           |             |                                  |
| D                   |             |                                  |
| isproportionality** |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 9\. Percent of      | The State   | > The State provided baseline    |
| districts with      | provided    | > data, targets and improvement  |
| disproportionate    | FFY 2005    | > activities and OSEP accepts    |
| representation of   | baseline    | > the SPP for this indicator.    |
| racial and ethnic   | data of 0%. | > The State, utilizing a         |
| groups in special   |             | > weighted risk ratio analysis,  |
| education and       |             | > indicated that there was no    |
| related services    |             | > disproportionate               |
| that is the result  |             | > representation of racial and   |
| of inappropriate    |             | > ethnic groups in special       |
| identification.     |             | > education and related services |
|                     |             | > in Pennsylvania that is the    |
| \[Compliance        |             | > result of inappropriate        |
| Indicator; New\]    |             | > identification. However, the   |
|                     |             | > State did not explain whether  |
|                     |             | > this was because no districts  |
|                     |             | > were identified with           |
|                     |             | > disproportionate               |
|                     |             | > representation, or because no  |
|                     |             | > observed disproportionate      |
|                     |             | > representation was the result  |
|                     |             | > of inappropriate               |
|                     |             | > identification. The State also |
|                     |             | > did not describe how it        |
|                     |             | > determined whether             |
|                     |             | > disproportionate               |
|                     |             | > representation was the result  |
|                     |             | > of inappropriate               |
|                     |             | > identification. The State must |
|                     |             | > include this information in    |
|                     |             | > the FFY 2006 APR, due February |
|                     |             | > 1, 2008.                       |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 10\. Percent of     | The State   | The State provided baseline      |
| districts with      | provided    | data, targets and improvement    |
| disproportionate    | FFY 2005    | activities and OSEP accepts the  |
| representation of   | baseline    | SPP for this indicator. The      |
| racial and ethnic   | data of 0%. | State, utilizing a weighted risk |
| groups in specific  |             | ratio analysis, indicated that   |
| disability          |             | there was no disproportionate    |
| categories that is  |             | representation of racial and     |
| the result of       |             | ethnic groups disaggregated in   |
| inappropriate       |             | any disability category          |
| identification.     |             | receiving special education and  |
|                     |             | related services in              |
| \[Compliance        |             | Pennsylvania. However, the State |
| Indicator; New\]    |             | did not explain whether this was |
|                     |             | because no districts were        |
|                     |             | identified with disproportionate |
|                     |             | representation, or because no    |
|                     |             | observed disproportionate        |
|                     |             | representation was the result of |
|                     |             | inappropriate identification.    |
|                     |             | The State also did not describe  |
|                     |             | how it determined whether        |
|                     |             | disproportionate representation  |
|                     |             | was the result of inappropriate  |
|                     |             | identification. The State must   |
|                     |             | include this information in the  |
|                     |             | FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,    |
|                     |             | 2008.                            |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **Monitoring        |             |                                  |
| Priority: Effective |             |                                  |
| General             |             |                                  |
| Supervision**       |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 11\. Percent of     | The State's | > The State provided baseline    |
| children with       | reported    | > data, targets and improvement  |
| parental consent to | FFY 2005    | > activities and OSEP accepts    |
| evaluate, who were  | baseline    | > the SPP for this indicator.    |
| evaluated within 60 | data for    | > OSEP looks forward to          |
| days (or            | this        | > reviewing data in the FFY 2006 |
| State-established   | indicator   | > APR, due February 1, 2008,     |
| timeline).          | are 94.35%. | > that demonstrate compliance    |
|                     |             | > with the requirements of 34    |
| \[Compliance        |             | > CFR §300.301(c)(1), including  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             | > correction of the              |
|                     |             | > noncompliance identified in    |
|                     |             | > FFY 2005.                      |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 12. Percent of      | The State's | OSEP's March 13, 2006 FFY 2004   |
|     children        | FFY 2005    | SPP response letter required the |
|     referred by     | reported    | State to include in the February |
|     Part C prior to | data for    | 1, 2007 APR data and information |
|     age 3, who are  | this        | indicating that the              |
|     found eligible  | indicator   | noncompliance identified in that |
|     for Part B, and | by          | letter was corrected within one  |
|     who have an IEP | reporting   | year of its identification. The  |
|     developed and   | four        | State provided no evidence of    |
|     implemented by  | separate    | correction of this previously    |
|     their third     | quarterly   | identified noncompliance.        |
|     birthdays.      | p           |                                  |
|                     | ercentages. | The State must review its        |
| \[Compliance        | The average | improvement activities and       |
| Indicator\]         | of the four | revise, if appropriate, to       |
|                     | quarters'   | ensure they will enable the      |
|                     | rates is    | State to include data in the FFY |
|                     | 86.45%.     | 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008,  |
|                     | This        | that demonstrate compliance with |
|                     | represents  | the requirements of 34 CFR       |
|                     | progress    | §300.124, including correction   |
|                     | from the    | of noncompliance identified in   |
|                     | State's FFY | FFY 2004 and FFY 2005.           |
|                     | 2004        |                                  |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data of     |                                  |
|                     | 79.2%. The  |                                  |
|                     | State did   |                                  |
|                     | not meet    |                                  |
|                     | its FFY     |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 100%.    |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 13\. Percent of     | The State's | The State provided baseline      |
| youth aged 16 and   | reported    | data, targets and improvement    |
| above with an IEP   | FFY 2005    | activities and OSEP accepts the  |
| that includes       | baseline    | SPP for this indicator.          |
| coordinated,        | data are    |                                  |
| measurable, annual  | 85.30%.     | The State indicated that it      |
| IEP goals and       |             | analyzed data for the IEP        |
| transition services |             | content probes which included    |
| that will           |             | post-school outcomes for         |
| reasonably enable   |             | education/training, employment,  |
| the student to meet |             | and community living;            |
| the post-secondary  |             | description of transition        |
| goals.              |             | services and relationship        |
|                     |             | between transition assessment    |
| \[Compliance        |             | and planning; and measurable     |
| Indicator; New\]    |             | annual goals.                    |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | OSEP looks forward to reviewing  |
|                     |             | data in the FFY 2006 APR, due    |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008, that           |
|                     |             | demonstrates compliance with the |
|                     |             | requirements of 34 CFR           |
|                     |             | §300.320(b), including           |
|                     |             | correction of noncompliance      |
|                     |             | identified in FFY 2005.          |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 14\. Percent of     | The State   | The State must provide baseline  |
| youth who had IEPs, | provided a  | data, targets, and improvement   |
| are no longer in    | plan that   | activities with the FFY 2006     |
| secondary school    | describes   | APR, due February 1, 2008.       |
| and who have been   | how data    |                                  |
| competitively       | will be     |                                  |
| employed, enrolled  | collected.  |                                  |
| in some type of     |             |                                  |
| post-secondary      |             |                                  |
| school, or both,    |             |                                  |
| within one year of  |             |                                  |
| leaving high        |             |                                  |
| school.             |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 15\. General        | State's FFY | The State did not recalculate    |
| supervision system  | 2005        | its baseline data reported in    |
| (including          | reported    | the SPP.                         |
| monitoring,         | data        |                                  |
| complaints,         | (combined   | OSEP's March 13, 2006 FFY 2004   |
| hearings, etc.)     | school-aged | SPP response letter required the |
| identifies and      | and         | State to include in its February |
| corrects            | preschool)  | 1, 2007 APR a review and, if     |
| noncompliance as    | for this    | necessary, a revision of its     |
| soon as possible    | indicator   | improvement strategies to        |
| but in no case      | are 94.0%.  | address the timely correction of |
| later than one year | This        | noncompliance. The State         |
| from                | represents  | reported that all noncompliance  |
| identification.     | progress    | from 2004-2005 was corrected     |
|                     | from the    | within one year or within        |
| \[Compliance        | State's FFY | extensions granted. The State    |
| Indicator\]         | 2004        | reported that it granted         |
|                     | reported    | extensions when there was not a  |
|                     | data of 76% | sufficient fresh sample size to  |
|                     | for         | verify corrective action within  |
|                     | school-aged | one year. For example, in some   |
|                     | programs    | small districts there was not a  |
|                     | and 51% for | sufficient number of children    |
|                     | preschool   | with disabilities who were       |
|                     | programs.   | suspended/expelled on which to   |
|                     | The State   | base a new sample population to  |
|                     | did not     | verify correction of the         |
|                     | meet its    | systemic noncompliance, although |
|                     | FFY 2005    | the State corrected the          |
|                     | target of   | individual noncompliance for     |
|                     | 100%.       | each student identified in the   |
|                     |             | original monitoring within one   |
|                     |             | year. 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 |
|                     |             | 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), and 34 |
|                     |             | CFR §§300.149 and 300.600. In    |
|                     |             | its response to Indicator 15 in  |
|                     |             | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
|                     |             | 1, 2008, the State 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 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 compliance  |
| complaints with     | reported    | and looks forward to data in the |
| reports issued that | data for    | FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,    |
| were resolved       | this        | 2008, that continue to           |
| within 60-day       | indicator   | demonstrate compliance with the  |
| timeline or a       | are 100%.   | requirements of 34 CFR §300.152. |
| timeline extended   | The State   |                                  |
| for exceptional     | met its FFY |                                  |
| circumstances with  | 2005 target |                                  |
| respect to a        | of 100%.    |                                  |
| particular          |             |                                  |
| complaint.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Compliance        |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 17\. Percent of     | The State's | The State must review its        |
| fully adjudicated   | FFY 2005    | improvement activities and       |
| due process hearing | reported    | revise them, if appropriate, to  |
| requests that were  | data for    | ensure they will enable the      |
| fully adjudicated   | this        | State to include data in the FFY |
| within the 45-day   | indicator   | 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008,  |
| timeline or a       | are 96.5%.  | that demonstrate compliance with |
| timeline that is    | This        | the requirements of 34 CFR       |
| properly extended   | represents  | §300.515(a).                     |
| by the hearing      | slippage    |                                  |
| officer at the      | from the    |                                  |
| request of either   | State's FFY |                                  |
| party.              | 2004        |                                  |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
| \[Compliance        | data of     |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | 100%. The   |                                  |
|                     | State did   |                                  |
|                     | not meet    |                                  |
|                     | its FFY     |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 100%.    |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 18\. Percent of     | The State   | > The State provided baseline    |
| hearing requests    | reported    | > data, targets and improvement  |
| that went to        | FFY 2005    | > activities and OSEP accepts    |
| resolution sessions | baseline    | > the SPP for this indicator.    |
| that were resolved  | data of     | > However the State mistakenly   |
| through resolution  | 67%.        | > refers to the percent of       |
| session settlement  |             | > mediations rather the percent  |
| agreements.         |             | > of resolution sessions in the  |
|                     |             | > targets. (The State provided   |
| \[Results           |             | > data based on the correct      |
| Indicator; New\]    |             | > measurement.) The State must   |
|                     |             | > revise the targets for this    |
|                     |             | > indicator in the SPP to refer  |
|                     |             | > to percent of resolution       |
|                     |             | > sessions rather than           |
|                     |             | > mediations in the FFY 2006     |
|                     |             | > submission, due February 1,    |
|                     |             | > 2008.                          |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 19\. Percent of     | The State's | The State reported progress and  |
| mediations held     | FFY 2005    | OSEP looks forward to the        |
| that resulted in    | reported    | State's data demonstrating       |
| mediation           | data for    | improvement in performance in    |
| agreements.         | this        | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
|                     | indicator   | 1, 2008.                         |
| \[Results           | are 79.3%.  |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | This        |                                  |
|                     | represents  |                                  |
|                     | progress    |                                  |
|                     | from FFY    |                                  |
|                     | 2004 data   |                                  |
|                     | of 78.0%,   |                                  |
|                     | however,    |                                  |
|                     | the State   |                                  |
|                     | did not     |                                  |
|                     | meet its    |                                  |
|                     | FFY 2005    |                                  |
|                     | target of   |                                  |
|                     | 79.5%.      |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 20\. State reported | > The       | The State's FFY 2005 reported    |
| data (618 and State | > State's   | data for this indicator are      |
| Performance Plan    | > FFY 2005  | 100%. OSEP appreciates the       |
| and Annual          | > reported  | State's efforts in achieving     |
| Performance Report) | > data for  | compliance and looks forward to  |
| are timely and      | > this      | data in the FFY 2006 APR, due    |
| accurate.           | > indicator | February 1, 2008, that continue  |
|                     | > are 100%. | to demonstrate compliance with   |
| \[Compliance        | > The State | the requirements of IDEA section |
| Indicator\]         | > met its   | 618 and 34 CFR §§76.720 and      |
|                     | > FFY 2005  | 300.601(b).                      |
|                     | > target of |                                  |
|                     | > 100%.     |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+