November 14, 2005

Honorable D. Kent King

Commissioner of Education

Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education

205 Jefferson Street, 6th Floor

Jefferson City, MO  65102

Dear Commissioner King:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Missouri Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education's (DESE's) March 31, 2005 submission
of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 Annual Performance Report (APR)
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B for
the grant period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004. The APR reflects
actual accomplishments that the State made during the reporting period,
compared to established objectives. The Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP) has designed the APR under the IDEA to provide uniform
reporting from States and result in high-quality information across
States. The APR is a significant data source for OSEP in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS).

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and include specific data-based determinations
regarding performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas. This
letter responds to the State's FFY 2003 APR, and Progress Reports
submitted on December 7, 2004 and June 27, 2005. OSEP has set out its
comments, analysis and determinations by cluster area.

*Background*

The conclusion of OSEP's January 18, 2005 FFY 2002 APR response letter
required the State to include the following in the FFY 2003 APR:

1.  With regard its responsibility to monitor to ensure that eligible
    youth with disabilities incarcerated in local city/county jails
    receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE), either: (a)
    documentation that DESE ensured that the 20 districts in which it
    found noncompliance in 2003-2004 corrected the noncompliance within
    one year of identification; or (b) its plan for ensuring correction
    by June 27, 2005.

2.  A progress report showing that it had a proper method of identifying
    and correcting noncompliance in a timely manner, as required by 34
    CFR §300.600 and 20 U. S. C. 1232d(b)(3).

3.  With regard to the enforcement of corrective actions contained in
    complaint decisions: (a) an indication of the extent to which DESE
    was meeting its responsibility to ensure that noncompliance was
    corrected either within the time period established by DESE, or as
    soon as possible, but no later than one year from identification;
    and (b) a target for correction of identified noncompliance
    consistent with DESE's responsibility to ensure that all
    noncompliance that it identifies is corrected within one year from
    identification.

4.  Further data and analysis regarding regional shortages in special
    education personnel, and the impact of such shortages on the
    provision of FAPE to eligible children with disabilities.

5.  Further analysis of the effectiveness of DESE's data collection
    procedures.

6.  With respect to ensuring that each child found eligible for Part B
    services has an individualized education program (IEP) or
    individualized family service plan (IFSP) in effect by the child's
    third birthday (34 CFR §300.132(b)), either: (a) documentation that
    it ensured that public agencies corrected all of the identified
    noncompliance; or (b) the State's plan for ensuring correction.

7.  With regard to affording parents the opportunity to provide
    information that would be used in the evaluation (34 CFR
    §§300.533-300.535) and ensuring that parents, and children with
    disabilities when appropriate, are involved in the evaluation and
    eligibility determination (34 CFR §§300.533(a)(1) and
    300.534(a)(1)), either: (a) documentation that it ensured that
    public agencies corrected all of identified noncompliance; or (b)
    the State's plan for ensuring correction.

8.  The results of its review of policies, procedures and practices used
    in the identification and placement of children with disabilities to
    ensure consistency with 34 CFR §300.755, and, if the data
    demonstrated noncompliance, a plan to ensure correction of the
    noncompliance.

9.  As required by the APR instructions, suspension and expulsion rates
    for children with disabilities, as compared to nondisabled children
    or across local educational agencies (LEAs) in the State.

10. A progress report on its plan for correcting the identified
    noncompliance with respect to State and district-wide assessments,
    specifically the requirements that: (a) the State make available,
    and report to the public with the same frequency and in the same
    detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children,
    information on the performance of children with disabilities on
    statewide assessments (34 CFR §300.139(a)); (b) the State ensures
    that all children with disabilities participate in statewide
    assessments and, if the IEP team determines that a child with a
    disability will not participate in a particular statewide assessment
    of student achievement (or part of an assessment), the child's IEP
    includes a statement of why the assessment is not appropriate for
    the child and how the child will be assessed (34 CFR §§300.138 and
    300.347(a)(5)); (c) the State ensures that youth with disabilities
    in Division of Youth Services (DYS) facilities are included in
    general State and district-wide assessments (34 CFR §§300.138,
    300.139, and 300.347(a)(5)); and (d) the State ensures that children
    with disabilities are included in districtwide assessments (34 CFR
    §§300.138, 300.139, and 300.347(a)(5)).

11. With respect to preschool outcomes, documentation of data, targets
    for improved performance and strategies to achieve those targets for
    this area, or a plan to collect the data, including a detailed
    timeline of the activities necessary to implement that plan.

OSEP's July 1, 2005 FFY 2005 Missouri Part B Grant Award letter imposed
Special Conditions on the State's Part B Grant Awards related to
compliance with 34 CFR §§300.138, 300.139, and 300.347(a)(5) as they
apply to districtwide assessments. In the Special Conditions enclosure
to that letter, OSEP included a detailed analysis of the status of the
State's efforts to correct that noncompliance, and specified
documentation that the State must submit by February 17, 2006 to
demonstrate that it corrected that noncompliance. Therefore, OSEP is not
addressing that area in this letter.

*General Supervision*

[Other: Youth with disabilities in city and county jails]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to submit either: (1)
documentation that it ensured that the 20 districts in which it found
noncompliance in 2003-2004 regarding its responsibility to monitor to
ensure that eligible youth with disabilities incarcerated in local
city/county jails receive FAPE corrected the noncompliance within one
year of identification; or (2) its plan for ensuring correction by June
27, 2005.

DESE's Interim Progress Report dated November 30, 2004 provided data for
monitoring activities conducted during the 2003-2004 school year. Those
data indicated that DESE: (1) finalized interview questions regarding
this issue and incorporated them into the interview packets for special
education administrators and superintendents; (b) piloted the questions
during 32 initial on-site reviews; and (c) determined 20 of those
districts to be out of compliance. DESE further stated that it would
conduct follow-up reviews during 2004-2005 to document correction of the
noncompliance. The State also provided additional strategies that DESE
would impose for districts demonstrating continued noncompliance.

On page 7 of the FFY 2003 APR, DESE reported that its Compliance staff
was processing the follow-up reviews for the 20 districts found out of
compliance during the 2003-2004 school year. DESE further reported that
districts with on-site reviews continued to be interviewed regarding
provision of services to youth with disabilities in city and county
jails and that the results of the follow-up reviews would be included in
DESE's final report to OSEP by June 27, 2005. Additionally, DESE
reported that the special education child count collection was not
revised to collect data regarding youth with disabilities held in
city/county jails and that the revisions were "determined not to be
required at this point since the current collection is based on a point
in time and this population has high, mobility. These data will be
collected through the Special Education Monitoring Self-Assessment
(SEMSA) process."

In its June 27, 2005 Final Report on this issue, DESE reported that it
implemented all of the activities needed to ensure that effective
monitoring procedures were in place to determine whether a public agency
had procedures in place to identify when youth under their jurisdictions
were incarcerated in a local city or county jail, and to offer services
for those youth. DESE also included a summary of monitoring activities
that it implemented or planned to implement to continue to ensure
compliance with this area. As part of its 2004-2005 monitoring
activities, DESE reported that in the 16 districts in which it conducted
on-site reviews and interviews with special education administrators and
regular administrators, four districts did not have adequate procedures
in place for identification and/or provision of services to youth with
disabilities incarcerated in local city/county jails. DESE reported that
all of the four districts submitted corrective action plans assuring
that they would have procedures in place within 12 months to ensure that
they identify, and offer the provision of services to, students with
disabilities under their jurisdiction incarcerated in local city/county
jails. With the State Performance Plan (SPP), due December 2, 2005, or
within 60 days of the date of this letter, DESE must report on the
status of the corrective action plans for the four districts with
identified noncompliance.

[Identification and timely correction of noncompliance]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to provide a progress
report showing that it had a proper method of identifying and correcting
noncompliance in a timely manner, as required by 34 CFR §300.600 and 20
U. S. C. 1232d(b)(3). On page 5 of the FFY 2003 APR, data showed that,
while correction of noncompliance improved from one year ago, not all
districts with identified noncompliance were "cleared."[^1] The State
reported that in 2002-2003, DESE made findings of noncompliance in 94 of
100 public agencies monitored on-site and the noncompliance was cleared
in 43 of them at the time of the FFY 2003 APR while 51 agencies still
had outstanding noncompliance at the time of the FFY 2003 APR. In
2003-2004, DESE made findings of noncompliance in 106 of the 107 public
agencies in which it conducted on-site monitored reviews, and by the
time of the FFY 2003 APR, 26 agencies had cleared the noncompliance
while 38 agencies had outstanding noncompliance (the State reported that
42 were not yet due at the time of the reporting). Indicator 15 in the
SPP, due December 2, 2005, requires States to report on the extent to
which they have ensured that LEAs corrected noncompliance identified in
2003-2004 within one year from identification. OSEP will review the data
in the SPP, and determine whether the State needs to submit additional
data by February 17, 2006.

[Formal written complaints]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to provide, in a Progress
Report within six months of the date of that letter, data and
information regarding progress in the enforcement of corrective actions
contained in complaint decisions by: (1) indicating the extent to which
DESE was meeting its responsibility to ensure that noncompliance was
corrected either within the time period established by DESE, or as soon
as possible, but no later than one year from identification; and (2)
establishing a target for correction of identified noncompliance
consistent with DESE's responsibility to ensure that all noncompliance
it identifies is corrected within one year from identification.

In Attachment 1 of the APR, the State reported that during the 2003-2004
reporting period, DESE: (1) received 154 complaints (nine of which were
not investigated, were withdrawn, or lacked proper jurisdiction); and
(2) issued decisions for 145 complaints, 122 of which were within the
60-calendar day timeline and 23 were beyond 60 days but with a
documented extension. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's data
in this area in the SPP.

On page 13 of the FFY 2003 APR, DESE acknowledged that, "some child
complaint corrective actions continue to exceed timelines." On page 14,
DESE provided a plan to address this issue, including tracking,
technical assistance and, for persistent noncompliance, withholding of
funds. OSEP has reviewed and accepts this plan. With the SPP, DESE
should continue to report progress toward ensuring that corrective
actions resulting from complaint investigations are completed in a
timely manner. By 30 days following one year from the date of this
letter, the State must submit a Final Report showing that it is ensuring
that complaint decisions are implemented in a timely manner and that
noncompliance identified in those decisions is corrected in a timely
manner, but in no case more than one year from identification.

## [Mediation]{.underline}

In Attachment 1 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State reported that, during the
2003-2004 reporting period, it received 11 mediation requests related to
hearing requests, and six resulted in mediation agreements. OSEP looks
forward to reviewing the State's data regarding the percent of
mediations that result in mediation agreements, in the SPP.

## 

## [Due process hearings and reviews]{.underline}

## 

## In Attachment 1 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State reported that all 11 due process hearings held during the reporting period resulted in decisions issued within timelines extended under 34 CFR §300.511(c). OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's data in this area in the SPP. 

## [Personnel]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter directed the State to submit further data and
analysis regarding

regional shortages in special education personnel, and the impact of
such shortages on the provision of FAPE to eligible children with
disabilities. On page 15 of the FFY 2003 APR, the

State reported data that indicated increasing numbers of special
education personnel statewide,

and that student/teacher ratios were reasonable for school age and early
childhood special

education. On page 16, the State reported that an increase in the number
of appropriately

certified cross-categorical teaching applicants may be helping to
decrease vacancies in specific

categorical disability areas. The State reported that the percentage of
speech language specialist

positions not filled increased from 8.5 percent during 2002-2003 to 25.5
percent during 2003-

2004\. It is important for the State to monitor to ensure that any
vacancies do not result in a denial of services to which children with
disabilities are entitled under Part B of IDEA.

###### 

###### [Collection and timely reporting of accurate data]{.underline}

###### 

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to provide further
analysis of the effectiveness of DESE's data collection procedures. On
page 21 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State indicated that the accuracy of
its data collection and reporting was assured through a variety of
processes within the Division of Special Education. DESE summarized its
methods for facilitating accurate reporting and data verification
procedures. DESE reported that it worked with selected districts to
assess and validate data collection and reporting methods during Winter
2005, and that it was implementing a student identification system in
Spring 2005. DESE reported that as the student identification system
develops over the coming years, it expects to provide student-level data
on a statewide basis, at which point it will develop a process of source
document reviews to verify that data in the student-level collection is
accurate. Additionally, DESE reported that it is in the process of
converting the Special Education District Profile to a web-based
application, which will result in districts and the public having access
to more timely data reports. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's
data in this area in the SPP.

## Early Childhood Transition

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to provide either: (1)
documentation that DESE ensured that public agencies corrected all of
the noncompliance with the requirements of 34 CFR

§§300.132(b); or (2) its plan for ensuring such correction, within one
year of the date on which OSEP accepted the plan. On page 24 of the FFY
2003 APR, the State provided monitoring data for Part C transition
showing that: (1) DESE made findings of noncompliance with the
requirement to have an IEP in place by a child's third birthday in five
of the 41 public agencies monitored during 2002-2003, and one of those
five agencies had outstanding noncompliance after a follow-up review;
and (2) DESE made findings of noncompliance with that requirement in
seven of the 41 public agencies monitored during 2003-2004, and one of
those seven agencies had outstanding noncompliance after a follow-up
review. On page 24, DESE reported that, when noncompliance has not been
corrected, procedures have been implemented that will result in all
noncompliance being corrected or sanction procedures will be
implemented. DESE reported that those procedures would be included in
the June 2005 report to OSEP. Although the State did not provide that
information in its June 2005 Progress Report, but reported in an e-mail
message to OSEP dated October 25, 2005 that the two districts with
outstanding noncompliance were cleared of the noncompliance by June 30,
2005. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts to ensure compliance with
this area and looks forward to reviewing updated data in the SPP.

*Parent Involvement*

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to provide either: (1)
documentation that DESE ensured that public agencies corrected the
noncompliance with the requirements of 34 CFR §§300.533-300.535; or (2)
its plan for ensuring such correction.

On pages 34-36 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State provided data showing
that, during the 2003-2004 school year, DESE found that: (1) nine of 101
agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the requirement that the
parent be notified of the eligibility staffing, and DESE cleared all but
one agency; (2) 18 of 101 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with
requirements for the content of the notification related to informing
parents that the purpose of the meeting was to determine eligibility,
and DESE cleared all but one agency; (3) eight of 102 agencies monitored
were in noncompliance with the requirement that the parents be included
in the group determining eligibility, and DESE cleared all but one
agency; (4) 12 of 101 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the
requirement that the parent be notified of the eligibility staffing when
additional assessments were conducted, and DESE cleared all but two
agencies; (5) 20 of 103 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with
the requirement to inform parents that a purpose of the meeting was
evaluation, and DESE cleared all but one agency; (6) 69 of 106 agencies
monitored were in noncompliance with the requirement regarding prior
written notice, and DESE cleared all but six agencies; (7) 25 of 106
agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the requirement to inform
parents of all purposes of the IEP meeting, and DESE cleared all but one
agency; (8) 28 of 106 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the
requirement regarding a statement of how the child's progress on the IEP
would be reported to the parent, and DESE cleared all but two agencies;
(9) 25 of 106 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the
requirement that the progress report include the progress toward annual
goals, and DESE cleared all but one agency; and (10) 35 of 106 agencies
monitored were in noncompliance with the requirement for the progress
report to address the likelihood of achievement of the annual goals by
the end of the year, and DESE cleared all but two agencies.

DESE indicated that, where areas of noncompliance were not cleared,
procedures were implemented that would result in all noncompliance being
corrected or sanction procedures would be implemented. DESE indicated
that it would report the results of these findings in its June 30, 2005
report to OSEP, but that report did not provide documentation that it
corrected this noncompliance. In an e-mail to OSEP dated October 25,
2005, the State explained that in the FFY 2003 APR, it reported data for
five indicators regarding parental involvement (State Indicators 101100,
101210, 102410, 103600, 103710) and that the findings of noncompliance
for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 represented a total of seven districts.[^2]
The State reported that all noncompliance in those seven districts was
cleared as of June 20, 2005. Additionally, the State provided data for
seven additional indicators (that are not requirements of 34 CFR
§§300.533-300.535) in the FY 2003 APR that showed outstanding
noncompliance in 20 agencies monitored in 2002-2003 and in 12 agencies
monitored in 2003-2004. With the SPP, or within 60 days of the date of
this letter, the State must provide data and analysis showing that it
has ensured correction in the remaining noncompliant districts or
describe the sanctions imposed for all of the indicators reported.

***Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE)***

### Disproportionality

OSEP's January 2005 letter directed DESE to include the results of its
review of policies,

procedures and practices used in the identification and placement of
children with disabilities to

ensure consistency with 34 CFR §300.755, and, if the data demonstrated
noncompliance, a plan

to ensure correction of the noncompliance. Data in Attachment 2 of the
FFY 2003 APR showed that Black children were 1.22 times more likely than
all other children to receive special education and related services. On
page 41 of the FY 2003 APR, DESE reported that, while this was not
significant disproportionality, overrepresentation of Black children at
the district level was part of the district-level analysis for
monitoring. DESE further reported that underrepresentation was found for
Hispanic, Asian and Native American children, but this
underrepresentation was not a focus area, due to the small percentage of
both children with disabilities and all children in these racial/ethnic
categories in Missouri.

DESE reported that, after reviewing its statewide data, it was clear
that the most significant areas of disproportionality were
overrepresentation of Black children in special education and in the
disability categories of mental retardation (MR), emotional disturbance
(ED) and specific learning disabilities (LD), in self-contained
placements (outside the regular classroom more than 60 percent of the
time), and in separate facilities.[^3] DESE reported that other areas of
disproportionality existed, but were either in racial/ethnic categories
that represented less than three percent of Missouri's child population
or were in low-incidence disability or placement categories.

On page 42 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State indicated that its effort to
address disproportionality fell under two areas: (1) technical
assistance; and (2) corrective action. With regard to technical
assistance, the State reported that, when special education consultants
are working in districts with identified disproportionality, data
analysis is required to include examination of the identified
disproportionality and the policies, procedures and practices used in
the identification and placement of children with disabilities to ensure
consistency with the Part B regulations. If the review of data indicates
a need for revisions or additional training, DESE will use its State
Improvement Grant to provide professional development. Additionally,
efforts and effects for those districts (result of review, what
revisions, if any were made) would be tracked. On pages 42-43, the State
indicated that eight districts with identified disproportionality are
currently working with special education consultants and nine districts
that were completing SEMSAs during 2004-2005 would be asked to complete
the disproportionality survey and return it along with the other SEMSA
information. DESE indicated that disproportionality information included
in the SEMSAs would be used as a factor in determining which districts
would receive an on-site monitoring review. OSEP has reviewed and
accepts these strategies and looks forward to reviewing the State's SPP,
due December 2, 2005.

With regard to the corrective action taken, the State's monitoring data
on page 43 of the FFY 2003 APR showed that two of six districts
monitored were found out of compliance and that the noncompliance was
being addressed through corrective action plans. The State explained
that one of those agencies had an enrollment that was 95% White, and the
agency had subsequently closed, so "any significant disproportionality
disappeared." The State reported that in the other district, all
principals had been trained in various special education topics,
including eligibility and that a compliance supervisor is working with
the district to address disproportionality issues with them. DESE
reported that corrective actions would include reviewing and, if
necessary, revising policies and procedures in regards to identification
and placement of students with disabilities.

The SPP instructions establish two new indicators in this area (#9 and
#10), for which States must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR,
due February 1, 2007. The State should carefully review the instructions
to the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. OSEP looks
forward to reviewing the State's plan for collecting these data, in the
SPP.

[Graduation and drop-out rates]{.underline}

On page 46 of the FFY 2003 APR, data indicated that graduation rates for
students with disabilities decreased from 69.9% in 2003 to 69.8% in
2004, and the gap between graduation rates of students with and without
disabilities increased from 14.1% to 15.3%. The State reported
monitoring data showing that in 2003-2004, 22 of 82 districts reviewed
were not meeting the performance standards for increasing the percentage
of students who graduated with a regular diploma and 23 of 86 districts
reviewed were not meeting performance standards for decreasing the
percentage of students who dropped out. The State also reported that the
drop-out percentage increased for all students from 3.4% to 3.9%, but
remained at 5.4% for students with disabilities. On page 48, data showed
that the highest percentage of drop-outs were students with LD and
ED.[^4] DESE indicated that, given the large number of LD drop-outs and
the high propensity for students with ED to drop-out, LD and ED
drop-outs were areas of review for districts identified for focused
monitoring in 2004-2005. DESE stated that districts were required to
submit assurance statements regarding implementation of a plan designed
to address low performance.

## [Suspension and expulsion rates]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter directed the State to include data and
analysis required by the APR instructions, regarding suspension and
expulsion rates for children with disabilities compared to nondisabled
children or across LEAs in the State. On page 52 of the FFY 2003 APR
data showed that children with disabilities made up 26.8 percent of
overall disciplinary incidents. The data further showed that the highest
number of incidents resulting in disciplinary action involved children
with ED and LD; however, DESE indicated that these numbers were
decreasing over the years. On page 53, data showed that Black children
were being disciplined at a disproportionate rate for both children with
disabilities and all children. Differences were also seen in the types
of removals. For example, White children with disabilities were more
likely to receive short-term suspensions, while Black children with
disabilities were more likely to receive longer suspensions. On page 54,
the data showed that in 2002-2003, DESE monitored 85 districts and found
15 (17.6%) were not meeting performance standards for decreasing the
percentage of suspension and expulsion rates for children with
disabilities and making them more comparable to those for all students.
In 2003-2004, DESE monitored 87 districts and found that 18 (20.7%) were
not meeting the performance standards.

On page 56 of the FFY 2003 APR the State indicated that the special
education consultants would provide assistance to districts, as needed,
and that its effort to address discrepancies in rates of long-term
suspension/expulsions fell under two areas: (1) technical assistance;
and (2) corrective action. With respect to technical assistance, the
State indicated that, when special education consultants worked in
districts with identified discrepancies in the area of long-term
suspension, data analysis was required to include examination of
discipline policies, procedures and practices. DESE indicated that, if
the review of data indicated a need for revisions or additional
training, it would use State Improvement Grant money to provide
professional development. Additionally, efforts and effects (result of
review, what revisions, if any were made) would be tracked. As part of
the SEMSA, DESE reported that districts with discipline rates for
children with disabilities that were twice the rates for children
without disabilities will be asked for additional documentation or, if
selected for on-site monitoring reviews during 2004-2005, a review of
the policies, procedures, and practices will be conducted as part of the
review.

The State reported that it would continue on-going monitoring. As part
of the on-site reviews for districts with discipline rates for children
with disabilities that were twice the rates for children without
disabilities, monitoring interviews will address the districts'
suspensions/expulsion data and discipline policies and practices. DESE
also indicated that corrective actions would include reviewing and, if
necessary, revising policies, practices and procedures regarding
discipline, as well as mandatory staff training.

OSEP appreciates DESE's response to this issue and looks forward to
reviewing updated data regarding the State's progress in the SPP, due
December 2, 2005. In preparation for the submission of data for
indicator #4 of the SPP, the State should carefully consider its current
data collection against the requirements related to this indicator in
the SPP packet to ensure that data will be responsive to those
requirements.

The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area (#4B), for
which States must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR, due
February 1, 2007. The State should carefully review the instructions to
the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. OSEP looks forward
to reviewing the State's plan for collecting this data, in the SPP.

## [Statewide and districtwide assessment]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter directed DESE to provide a progress report on
its plan for correcting the identified noncompliance with regard to
statewide and districtwide assessments. On page 61 of the FFY 2003 APR,
DESE reported participation rates for children with disabilities,
combined, for the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) and Missouri
Assessment Program -- Alternate (MAP-A). For math, grades 4, 8 and 10
demonstrated 97.7 percent, 97.1 percent and 95.3 percent participation.
For communication arts, grades 3, 7 and 11 demonstrated 97.4 percent,
96.9 percent and 96.6 percent participation.

On pages 58-60 of the FFY 2003 APR, DESE reported performance data for
children with and without disabilities on the MAP and MAP-A. In
communication arts, the percentages of children with disabilities
meeting the State proficiency goal was as follows (the State proficiency
goal follows the percent): (1) 8.5 (18.4) (2002); (2) 8.9 (19.4) (2003);
and (3) 10.5 (20.4) (2004). For children without disabilities, for the
same years, the percentages were as follows: (1) 30.7; (2) 29.7; and (3)
29.9. In math, the percentages of children with disabilities meeting the
State proficiency goal in communication arts was as follows (the State
proficiency goal follows the percent): (1) 7.3 (8.3) (2002); (2) 8.1
(9.3) (2003); and (3) 9.0 (10.3) (2004). For children without
disabilities, for the same years, the percentages were as follows: (1)
21.1; (2) 21.3; and (3) 22.9.

On page 61 of the FFY 2003 APR, DESE reported that it began assigning
achievement levels for children with disabilities taking the MAP-A in
2003-2004. Prior to that, each goal addressed in the student's portfolio
was rated individually and progress toward each goal was reported. In
2004, the MAP-A was assessed at grades 4, 8 and 11. It was previously
assessed at ages 9, 13 and 17. Due to this change, students were not
required to participate if they had participated in one of the previous
two years. Also, in 2004, the MAP-A was not required for grades 3, 7 and
10. Alternate assessments are being developed that will correspond to
all MAP assessments by 2006.

As noted above, issues relating to statewide and districtwide assessment
are addressed in Special Conditions attached to Missouri's FFY 2005
Grant Awards under Part B of the IDEA.

By February 17, 2006, the State must submit a Final Report showing that:
(1) it makes available, and reports to the public with the same
frequency and in the same detail as it reports on the assessment of
nondisabled children, information on the performance of children with
disabilities on statewide assessments pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.138 and
300.347(a)(5); (2) the State ensures that all children with disabilities
participate in statewide assessments and, if the IEP team determines
that a child with a disability will not participate in a particular
statewide assessment of student achievement (or part of an assessment),
the child's IEP includes a statement of why the assessment is not
appropriate for the child and how the child will be assessed pursuant to
34 CFR §§300.138, 300.139, and 300.347(a)(5); (3) the State ensures that
youth with disabilities in DYS facilities are included in general State
and district-wide assessments pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.138, 300.139, and
300.347(a)(5)); and (4) the State ensures that children with
disabilities are included in districtwide assessments.

[Least restrictive environment]{.underline}

On page 75 of the FY 2003 APR, the State's analysis of its placement
data showed that, for the school-aged population, the percentage of
children with disabilities placed outside the regular classroom less
than 21 percent of the day was increasing, while more restrictive
placements were decreasing. The data on page 71 showed that for
2003-2004 the percentage of students educated outside the regular class
less than 21 percent of the time in Missouri was 56.75 percent, while
the national average was 49.87 percent, and the percentage of students
educated outside the regular class more than 60 percent of the time in
Missouri was 11.41 percent, while the national average was 18.53
percent. Data on page 74 regarding children with disabilities, aged 3-5,
were comparable to national data, with the exception of the part-time
early childhood/part-time early childhood special education environment.
Those data (7.84 percent) showed that Missouri ranked lower than
national average of 16.37 percent. The data showed the national average
for itinerant services outside the home categories was 10.4 percent,
while Missouri's average was higher at 18.92 percent. DESE set targets
for educating children, aged 3-5, in more inclusive settings and noted
that, beginning in 2004-2005, corrective actions would require staff to
attend LRE training, when appropriate. On page 79 of the FFY 2003 APR,
DESE indicated that placement decisions and the use of the least
restrictive environment continue to be emphasized in a variety of ways,
including through performance calls, focused monitoring reviews, and
professional development modules. OSEP appreciates the State's work in
this area and looks forward to reviewing updated data in the SPP.

[Preschool outcomes]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required the State to provide documentation
of preschool outcomes data with targets for improved performance and
strategies to achieve those targets for this area, or a plan to collect
the data, including a detailed timeline of the activities necessary to
implement that plan. Under the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993, 31 U.S.C. 1116, the effectiveness of the IDEA section 619 program
is being measured based on the extent to which early
language/communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional skills of
preschool children with disabilities receiving special education and
related services are improving. On page 81 of the FFY 2003 APR, the
State did not provide OSEP with any new data in response to this
performance indicator but reported that data are limited due to sampling
methodology of the assessment instrument used prior to and including the
2003-2004 school year. The State indicated that the Fall 2004 results
were not available at the time of the FFY 2003 APR and that the
administration of this instrument would be expanded in 2004-2005 to
include assessment of all children exiting early childhood special
education.

The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area (# 7), for
which States must provide entry data in the FFY 2005 APR, due February
1, 2007. Absence of this information at that time will be considered in
OSEP's annual determination of the status of the State's performance and
compliance required under §616(d) of the IDEA. The State should
carefully review the instructions to the SPP in developing its plans for
this collection. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's plan to
collect this data, in the SPP.

*Secondary Transition*

On pages 84-93 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State provided data on its
efforts to collect secondary outcomes data. On page 86, the State
reported that six months post-graduation, for 2003 graduates, of all
students, 38.7 percent were in a four-year colleges, compared with 12.6
percent of students with disabilities; 26.8 percent of all students were
in two-year colleges compared with 23.4 percent of students with
disabilities; 3.4 percent of all students were in the military compared
with 3.3 percent of students with disabilities; and 19.3 percent of all
students were employed compared with 38.2 percent of students with
disabilities.

On page 87 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State reported noncompliance data
that included districts that did not correct noncompliance as of the
most recent follow-up review. Monitoring data showed that for several
monitoring indicators in the area of secondary transition, noncompliance
persisted in some districts for more than one year. On pages 87-89, the
State provided data showing that, during 2003-2004, DESE found that: (1)
30 of 95 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the requirement
regarding a statement of transition service needs (by age 14) addressing
anticipated post-secondary goals or career choices and all but three
districts corrected the noncompliance as of the most recent follow-up
review; (2) 47 of 95 agencies monitored were in noncompliance with
requirement for a statement of transition services needs (by age 14),
including courses of study and all but seven districts corrected the
noncompliance as of the most recent follow-up review; (3) 30 of 81
agencies monitored were in noncompliance with the requirement for a
statement of the needed transition services (by age 16), representing a
coordinated set of activities, written activities or goals and
consideration of students' needs, preferences and interests,[^5] and all
but five districts corrected the noncompliance as of the most recent
follow-up review; and (4) 21 of 96 agencies monitored were in
noncompliance with the requirement regarding inviting students to attend
IEP meetings if a purpose was the consideration of transition and all
but two districts corrected the noncompliance as of the most recent
follow-up review. DESE reported that it was implementing corrective
procedures to assist districts in achieving compliance in this area, or
that sanctions would be imposed if necessary. DESE also reported that
secondary transition has been identified as a systemic issue and was
selected as a priority area for improvement planning and focused
monitoring efforts.

## The SPP instructions establish two new indicators in this area (#13 and #14), for which States must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007 (#13) and in the FFY 2006 APR due February 1, 2008 (#14). The State should carefully review the instructions to the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the State's plan for collecting this data, in the SPP. With the SPP, DESE should include monitoring data demonstrating that identified noncompliance with transition requirements are corrected within one year of identification.

## Conclusion

With the SPP, due December 2, 2005, or within 60 days of the date of
this letter, DESE must:

1.  Report on the status of the corrective action plans for the four
    districts with noncompliance with respect to the provision of
    services to youth with disabilities incarcerated in local
    city/county jails.

2.  As required by Indicator 15 in the SPP, report on the extent to
    which it has ensured that LEAs corrected noncompliance identified in
    2003-2004 within one year from identification. OSEP will review the
    data in the SPP, and determine whether the State needs to submit
    additional data by February 17, 2006.

3.  Continue to report progress toward ensuring that corrective actions
    resulting from complaint investigations are completed in a timely
    manner. By 30 days following one year from the date of this letter,
    the State must submit a Final Report showing that it is ensuring
    that complaint decisions are implemented in a timely manner and that
    noncompliance identified in those decisions is corrected in a timely
    manner, but in no case more than one year from identification.

4.  Provide data and analysis showing that it ensured correction in the
    noncompliant agencies regarding parent involvement or describe the
    sanctions imposed.

By February 17, 2006, DESE must submit a final report, demonstrating
full compliance with the following requirements:

1.  34 CFR §300.300. FAPE is provided to eligible children with
    disabilities, in spite of regional shortages in special education
    personnel.

2.  34 CFR §§300.138, 300.139, 300.347(a)(5): (a) it makes available,
    and reports to the public with the same frequency and in the same
    detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children,
    information on the performance of children with disabilities on
    statewide assessments pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.138 and
    300.347(a)(5); (b) the State ensures that all children with
    disabilities participate in statewide assessments and, if the IEP
    team determines that a child with a disability will not participate
    in a particular statewide assessment of student achievement (or part
    of an assessment), the child's IEP includes a statement of why the
    assessment is not appropriate for the child and how the child will
    be assessed pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.138, 300.139, and
    300.347(a)(5); (c) the State ensures that youth with disabilities in
    DYS facilities are included in general State and district-wide
    assessments pursuant to 34 CFR §§300.138, 300.139, and
    300.347(a)(5)); and (d) the State ensures that children with
    disabilities are included in districtwide assessments.

IDEA 2004, §616, requires each State to submit a State Performance Plan
(SPP) that measures performance on monitoring priorities and indicators
established by the Department. These priorities and indicators are, for
the most part, the same as clusters and probes in the APR. OSEP
encourages the State to carefully consider the comments in this letter
as it prepares its SPP, due December 2, 2005.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State and looks forward to collaborating
with you as you continue to improve results for children and youth with
disabilities and their families. If you have questions, please contact
Angela McCaskill at (202) 245-7435.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/Troy R. Justesen
>
> Troy R. Justesen
>
> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Melodie Friedebach

[^1]: ^1^ The number "not cleared" was the number of districts with
    noncompliance that was not corrected as of the most recent follow-up
    review. Districts that received initial reviews during the 2003-2004
    school year that were not yet due for follow-up reviews by the date
    on which the State submitted its FFY 2003 APR were not reflected in
    the number "not cleared."

[^2]: ^2^ There appears to be a discrepancy in the number of districts
    with noncompliance. OSEP counted eight districts with outstanding
    noncompliance for 2002-2003 and 2003-2004.

[^3]: "Separate facilities" includes public and private residential
    facilities, public and private schools for children with
    disabilities, and home/hospital environments.

[^4]: The State explained that the data did not include children served
    by the Missouri Department of Corrections, DYS, and State-Operated
    Programs.

[^5]: Effective July 1, 2005, §614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) of IDEA 2004
    required that *beginning not later than the first IEP to be in
    effect when the child is 16*, and updated annually thereafter, the
    IEP contain: (1) appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based
    upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training,
    education, employment and, where appropriate, independent living
    skills; and (2) the transition services (including courses of study)
    needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.