July 23, 2004

Honorable Nancy Grasmick

State Superintendent of Schools

Maryland State Department of Education

200 West Baltimore Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21201

Dear Dr. Grasmick:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Maryland State
Department of Education's (MSDE's) March 30, 2004 submission of its
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002 Annual Performance Report (APR) for the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B funds used
during the grant period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003. The APR
reflects actual accomplishments made by the State during the reporting
period, compared to established objectives. The APR for IDEA is designed
to provide uniform reporting from States and result in high-quality
information across States. We recognize the time and effort that went
into the development of the State's APR and appreciate the State's work
to describe MSDE's performance related to serving students with
disabilities and their families under IDEA.

The APR is a significant data source utilized in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) implemented by the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), within the U.S. Department
of Education. The APR falls within the third component of OSEP's
four-part accountability strategy (i.e., supporting States in assessing
their performance and compliance, and in planning, implementing, and
evaluating improvement strategies) and consolidates the self-assessing
and improvement planning functions of the CIFMS into one document.
OSEP's Memorandum regarding the submission of Part B APRs directed
States to address five cluster areas: General Supervision; Early
Childhood Transition; Parent Involvement; Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment; and Secondary
Transition.

*Background*

MSDE's APR incorporated data and information from Maryland's State
Improvement Plan final report dated January 31, 2004, in response to
areas of noncompliance identified in the OSEP's Monitoring Report issued
July 26, 2001.[^1] The Improvement Plan was approved by OSEP on August
8, 2002 subject to revisions to the timelines on compliance issues to
show full compliance within one year from the date of the approval
letter. A revised IP was submitted August 28, 2002. MSDE was required to
submit the final evidence of change documents to demonstrate compliance
by August 8, 2003. OSEP based its approval on the understanding that the
SEA's revised monitoring system could identify and correct all areas of
noncompliance. On December 22, 2003, OSEP issued a letter to respond to
the State's July 2, 2003 Progress Report. OSEP's review of MSDE's
Progress Reports [^2] determined that the strategies did not demonstrate
substantial progress toward correcting noncompliance in some areas. OSEP
required MSDE to correct the Part B areas of noncompliance and to submit
a final report by January 31, 2004. This letter also responds to that
final report.

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and document data-based determinations regarding
performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas (as well as any
other areas identified by the State to ensure improvement). OSEP's
comments regarding each cluster area within the APR are set forth below.

*General Supervision*

[State Complaint Procedures]{.underline} OSEP's 1995 Monitoring Report
required the State to submit a corrective action plan that included
amending State complaint management procedures to ensure that all
complaints are resolved within 60 calendar days unless the timeline is
extended because exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a
particular complaint. (See, 34 CFR §300.661(a)). As cited on page 42 of
the OSEP 2001 monitoring report, MSDE could not document that the State
extends the 60-calendar-day timeline only under exceptional
circumstances. OSEP's review of the MSDE Complaint Log for the 1998-1999
School Year (SY) noted complaints were not always resolved within the
60-calendar-day timeline.

The State's Improvement Plan identified a number of strategies to
address this area of noncompliance: (a) ensuring a sufficient number of
staff to complete investigations within the required timelines; (b)
determining those circumstances that are unusual and require an
extension; (c) identifying complaints that require extensions before the
60^th^ day and informing both parties, in writing, that an extension is
needed with an explanation of the exceptional circumstances; and (d)
using a data system to track investigations that require an extension.
Benchmarks were established to address this area of noncompliance and,
as cited in the July 2003 Improvement Plan Progress Report, the rate of
complaint investigations and letters of findings issued within the
regulatory timelines improved from 62% during the FFY 2001 reporting
period to 87% during the FFY 2002 reporting period (through June 15,
2003). Data reported on page 9 of the FFY 2002 APR indicated that 125 of
151 or about 83% of complaints were within timelines for the period July
1, 2002 -- June 30, 2003. Finally, the January 2004 Improvement Plan
Final Report, page 34, indicated that 89.5% of complaints completed
between July 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003 were issued within regulatory
timeframes. That report also indicated additional steps that the State
would take to ensure timely handling of complaints. MSDE must continue
to report in its next APR on its progress in ensuring full compliance
with these requirements.

The State provided data on page 3 of the APR that indicated
noncompliance not previously identified by OSEP in the area of timely
correction of problems identified through complaint investigations.
Under 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E) and the State's general supervisory
responsibility for the IDEA Part B program, States are required to
correct identified deficiencies in program operations. MSDE did not
include in the APR strategies, evidence of change, targets and timelines
that will ensure correction of the noncompliance within a reasonable
period of time not to exceed one year from the date of OSEP's acceptance
of the proposed strategies. Therefore, MSDE must submit a plan
containing the required information to OSEP within 60 days of the date
of this letter, including strategies, proposed evidence of change,
targets, and timelines that will ensure correction of the noncompliance
within a reasonable period of time not to exceed one year from the date
OSEP accepts the plan.

[Impartial Due Process Hearings]{.underline}. The State provided data in
the APR that indicated noncompliance not previously identified by OSEP
in the area of timely due process decisions. On page 11 of the APR, MSDE
reported that it was unable to provide a valid and reliable report of
the number of untimely decisions or the number of hearings pending
during FFY 2000 and FFY 2001. Therefore, MSDE staff collected FFY 2002
data through a review of individual decisions and administrative reports
that concluded that twenty-three of 109 hearing decisions were issued
after the timeline and extensions expired. Under 34 CFR §300.511, States
must ensure that decisions are issued in due process hearings within 45
days of receipt of the request, unless an extension of time is granted
at the request of a party. To correct this deficiency, MSDE is using the
General Supervision Enhancement Grant to supplement the State's efforts
to develop a new database to enable the State to compile and review due
process hearing data to ensure timely and effective resolution of IDEA
disputes. Additional strategies reported on page 27 of the APR include
MSDE meetings with the staff of the Maryland Office of Administrative
Hearings to track timelines of both mediation and due process hearings;
hiring a dispute resolution data specialist; documenting the provision
of technical assistance and professional development; and reporting due
process hearing information in school system performance profiles. OSEP
accepts these strategies, evidence of change, targets and timelines.
MSDE must provide evidence of correction of the noncompliance, including
supporting data and analysis in the FFY 2003 APR, and, in addition, a
final progress report to OSEP, with data and analysis demonstrating
compliance, as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days following one
year after the date of this letter.

Probe GS.II in the APR asks States to determine whether systemic issues
are identified through analysis of findings from information and data
collected from all available sources, including monitoring, complaint
investigations and hearing resolutions. The GAO Report "Numbers of
Formal Disputes are Generally Low and States are Using Mediation and
Other Strategies to Resolve Conflicts," September 2003[^3], identifies
Maryland as having high numbers of requests for due process hearings,
based on data from 2000. In examining the reason for high numbers of
requests for due process hearings, it would be important to determine if
there are certain districts with concentrations of requests or if there
are certain issues for which hearings are most frequently requested. The
FFY 2002 APR does not include an analysis of hearing requests by issue
or locality, although the State reports that it is planning a new
database that should be able to capture this information. In the FFY
2003 APR, the State should address whether there are particular issues
or localities involved in due process hearing requests and identify
appropriate strategies to address the results of that analysis.

[Mediation]{.underline} MSDE revised its complaint management policies
and procedures to address the use of negotiations during the FFY 2001
and FFY 2002, as requested by the OSEP 2001 Monitoring Report. MSDE
reported in the APR that local districts did not collect data in a
manner that would allow the State to report accurate data. On pages 10
and 21 of the APR, MSDE reported the need to utilize FFY 2003 data from
the new database described above, as baseline for mediations. OSEP looks
forward to reviewing these data and the State's analysis of the data in
the FFY 2003 report.

The APR, on pages 26-28, included a number of strategies and timelines
to improve the identification and remediation of systemic issues through
the analysis of data, to update data systems, and to increase the supply
of certain categories of qualified personnel. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing the State's implementation of these strategies and their
impact on children with disabilities as a part of the next APR.

[Monitoring]{.underline} States participating in the Part B program have
provided assurances that they will adopt and use proper methods of
administering the program, including monitoring and the correction of
deficiencies that are identified through monitoring. 20
U.S.C.1232d(b)(3). On pages 18 through 20, and 24 through 27 of the APR
MSDE presents some information that indicates that it is conducting some
monitoring activities. However, the information presented does not
indicate whether MSDE is effectively identifying noncompliance and
ensuring correction of noncompliance identified through monitoring, or
using monitoring information to identify systemic issues needing
correction. MSDE must provide data to address these issues in the FFY
2003 APR.

MSDE also provided information about personnel needs and data collection
and strategies to improve performance in these areas. OSEP looks forward
to reviewing the State's implementation of these strategies and their
impact on children with disabilities as a part of the next APR.

*Early Childhood Transition*

The State provided data in the APR that indicated noncompliance not
previously identified by OSEP in the area of early childhood transition.
See 34 CFR §§300.121 and 300.132. On page 29 of the APR, MSDE reported
that the State was unable to obtain data from the existing data system
regarding the extent to which Local Infant and Toddler Programs and
public agencies were conducting IEP Eligibility Determination Meetings
at least 90 days prior to the child's third birthday. The APR further
reported that neither the Part C nor the Part B data reporting system
collected information regarding the date on which an IEP was developed
and approved by the IEP team. The Part B data reporting system did not
collect information on the specific date of implementation of the IEP.
On page 30 of the APR, MSDE reported that the State- and local-level
barriers to accurate data collection have been addressed.

Pages 31-33 of the APR specify strategies, evidence of change, targets,
and timelines to ensure correction within a reasonable period of time
not to exceed one year from the date of this letter. OSEP accepts the
State's strategies, evidence of change, targets, and timelines. The
State must provide evidence of progress in correcting the noncompliance,
including current supporting data and analysis, in the FFY 2003 APR and,
in addition, provide a final progress report to OSEP, with data and
analysis demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but no later
than 30 days following one year after the date of this letter.

*Parent Involvement*

On page 34 of the APR, MSDE reported a lack of coordinated State-level
support for local family support services staff due to a two-year
vacancy in the State Coordinator position. Partnerships were established
with community centers and preschool and school-aged programs that
provided support to families. The State reported delays in the reporting
and accountability systems for collecting data on the quality and effect
of parent involvement on the provision of FAPE. Revisions in State
regulations to address local special education advisory councils will be
in place by September 2004. On pages 35-36 of the APR, the State
identified a timeline and strategies for improved performance. OSEP
looks forward to reviewing the State's implementation of these
strategies and their impact on children with disabilities as a part of
the next APR.

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

[FAPE in the LRE]{.underline} The OSEP 1995 Maryland monitoring report
included a finding that MSDE did not fully meet its responsibility to
ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with
disabilities, including children in public and private institutions or
other care facilities, are educated with children who do not have
disabilities, and special classes, separate schooling or other removal
of children with disabilities occurs only if the severity of the
disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of
supplementary aids and supports cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
OSEP's July 2001 Monitoring Report stated: (1) that, during IEP
meetings, determinations were made of the "intensity level" of the
special education services and related services required by a students,
and "intensity level" determined whether a child with a disability would
be removed from a regular education classroom; (2) placement decisions
were made without consideration of accommodations and modifications to
permit the child to remain in the regular education classroom with the
needed intensity of services; (3) neither the IEP or any other document
in the students' records explained why children were not placed in the
regular classroom nor was there documentation that there had been
consideration of appropriate supplementary aids and services to promote
the children's placement in the LRE; (4) staff lacked understanding of
the IEP process or their role in recommending accommodations and
supports so that students with disabilities would be successful in the
regular education classroom; (5) failure to ensure that all IEP team
members (i.e., general educator, when required) attended IEP meetings;
and (6) access to the general curriculum depended solely on the site of
the special education services.

The State's July 2003 Progress Report provided documentation of ongoing
State initiatives and activities to address FAPE/LRE concerns, including
verification of data, LRE designated as a grant priority, professional
development needs, technical assistance and requiring staffing plans
with local applications for Part B funds. The documentation submitted
with the progress report includes a numerical goal. While it is
consistent with Part B to include a numerical goal to increase the
percentages of children with disabilities appropriately placed in less
restrictive settings, the State must continue to monitor to ensure that
placement decisions for all children are made in conformity with the LRE
requirements of Part B and not based upon a numerical goal.

OSEP's December 2003 letter reminded MSDE that its January 2004 final
report must include documentation that individual placement decisions
were based on the unique needs of the child with a disability, to
demonstrate progress toward the elimination of the State's former
practice of determining "placement levels." Monitoring information was
requested showing that: (a) the State monitors for statements in the
children's IEPs explaining the extent, if any, to which the child will
not participate with nondisabled children in the regular classroom and
documentation in children's records that the IEP team considered
appropriate supplementary aids and services to promote the child's
placement in the LRE; and (b) MSDE enforces corrective actions when LEAs
do not implement the requirements. MSDE also was asked for evidence that
all children with disabilities have access to the general curriculum,
regardless of placement. The one sample monitoring report included in
the January 2004 Final Report identified ongoing noncompliance with
individual decision-making. Pages 16 and 18 of the sample monitoring
report note that staff interviews indicated that: (1) children have to
"earn entrance" into general education; and (2) the "level" or
"intensity" of the student's needs dictate placement. Record reviews
cited noncompliance with the IEP content requirements specific to the
explanation for removal from regular education and documentation of
consideration of supplementary aids and services. Failure to include the
needed supplementary aids and services in the IEP was cited as well.
Although that sample report demonstrates that MSDE is able to identify
noncompliance, the State failed to document that it ensured correction,
in a timely manner, at the local level.

On page 60 of the APR, MSDE provided data and information indicating
that guidance was provided to local school districts regarding staff
development activities and that local programs were requesting training
and engaging in cooperative partnerships to improve LRE. MSDE required
LEAs to: (1) demonstrate a greater awareness of LRE data and its use to
support LEA requests for funds in grant applications; (2) demonstrate
commitment to requiring LRE data to develop goals to address appropriate
decision making about LRE in systemic Master Plans; (3) respond to
corrective actions addressing LRE issues with either corrective action
plans or special education improvement plans; and (4) request technical
assistance, as appropriate.

On pages 19 -- 21 of the January 2004 Final Report, MSDE provided
guidance and monitoring strategies and interventions to address LRE.
OSEP has determined that there was insufficient data provided in the
Final Report or the APR to demonstrate that MSDE ensures that the
removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary
aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. See 34 CFR
§300.550(b)(1) and (2). While MSDE identified the strategies it adopted
for correction, there is insufficient evidence that placement decisions
were being made consistent with the LRE requirements or that MSDE is
ensuring timely correction of identified deficiencies in LRE
decision-making. The State must submit to OSEP, within 60 days of the
date of this letter, data and analysis that support the conclusion that
the identified noncompliance has been corrected. MSDE can satisfy this
requirement by providing documentation of the LEA corrective action
plans developed to correct the noncompliance and subsequent follow-up
activities with documentation demonstrating that correction occurred.

Failure to provide all related services needed as a part of FAPE OSEP's
July 2001 Monitoring Report cited delays in the provision of special
education and related services for children with disabilities. The
delays were attributed to personnel shortages (mental health counselors
and speech pathologist) and to teacher's lack of experience in
implementing specific accommodations, modifications and supports.

In the March 2002 Improvement Plan, MSDE established the goal that 100%
of children with disabilities will receive related services as specified
on their IEPs, as evidenced by data from State monitoring of local
school systems. Strategies incorporated in the Improvement Plan
included: (1) revision of the data system; (2) analysis and
dissemination of staffing report data; (3) development of State Staffing
Plan Guidelines; (4) surveys for local school systems to determine the
number of service providers used; (5) standardization of the format to
measure levels of satisfaction with State-provided staff development;
(6) identification of current promising practices; and (7) development
and implementation of staff development activities for related service
providers. MSDE indicated that, by August 2003, data from the State's
monitoring system would provide evidence that the appropriate related
services were documented in the IEPs of children with disabilities.

OSEP's December 2003 letter required MSDE to submit in its January 2004
Final Report monitoring information and other documentation
demonstrating: (1) the provision of special education and related
services; and (2) eliminating any delays in service provision due to
staff shortages including: (a) psychological counseling; (b) speech
therapy; and (c) implementation of specific accommodations,
modifications, and supports in accordance with IEPs. MSDE was required
to include how corrective actions led to compliance at the local level.
On pages 27-29 of the Final Report, the State provided baseline and
current data, strategies and interventions, summary of evidence of
changes and next steps to monitor the provision of related services and
supports for students with disabilities and local school systems
staffing plans to determine if the school districts have sufficient
staff, to include related services providers, to meet the requirements
for implementing IEPs. However, no data regarding impact on appropriate
services for children with disabilities and whether they were effective
was provided.

On page 16 of the APR, MSDE reported increases in the number of
full-time staff including teachers, administrators and related services
providers. MSDE planned to analyze local school system staffing plans
for progress and slippage in staffing needs and link the plans to local
district grant awards to improve data collection from public agencies
regarding how FAPE is provided when there are staff vacancies.
Implementation is planned for September 2004. MSDE has implemented
strategies to increase the number of qualified staff. However, MSDE has
not submitted documentation to demonstrate that FAPE is provided when
staff vacancies occur.

While MSDE identified the strategies it adopted for correction, there is
insufficient evidence that children are receiving appropriate related
services based on their needs. The State must submit to OSEP, within 60
days of the date of this letter, data and analysis demonstrating that
the identified noncompliance has been corrected. MSDE can satisfy this
requirement by providing documentation that it monitors to ensure that
FAPE is provided when staff vacancies occur, and of the LEA corrective
action plans developed to correct the noncompliance and subsequent
follow-up activities with documentation demonstrating that correction
occurred.

[Lack of participation in statewide assessments of students placed in
non-public schools.]{.underline} As cited in the July 2001 OSEP
Monitoring Report, all State administrators and local special education
directors interviewed by OSEP said that children with disabilities
placed by the local school district in a nonpublic school did not
participate in the Maryland State-wide assessment program.

The March 2002 Improvement Plan included a goal that 100% of children
with disabilities attending nonpublic schools would participate in
State- and district-wide testing programs, or alternate assessments, as
specified to their IEPs. Strategies included: (1) disseminating a second
memorandum; (2) developing and disseminating guidance to local school
districts; (3) submission by local school systems of summary data
regarding the number of children with disabilities in nonpublic schools
participating in State- and district-wide assessments, or alternate
assessments; (4) monitoring of local school systems to ensure
compliance, including on-site visits to review records and conduct
interviews; and (6) implementing professional development activities.
The July 2003 Improvement Plan progress report cited data collection,
technical assistance, professional development, and monitoring as it
major activities during that reporting period.

OSEP's December 2003 letter required MSDE to include in its January 2004
final report, monitoring information and other documentation regarding:
(1) participation and performance of all publicly-placed children with
disabilities in nonpublic schools on State- and district-wide assessment
systems; and (2) documentation that when an IEP team decides a child
will not participate in all or part of that assessment, the IEP includes
a statement of why that assessment is not appropriate for the child and
how the child will be assessed. Further, if the State identified
noncompliance, in these areas, it must also include information
demonstrating that the State is ensuring implementation of corrective
actions for the identified noncompliance.

On pages 31-32 of the January 2004 Final Report and page 46 of the APR,
MSDE reported, that children with disabilities in nonpublic settings in
grades 3, 5, 8, 10 or 11 participated in the 2003 administration of
Maryland State Assessment (MSA) or alternate MSA. Data relative to
student participation and performance in Special Placement Schools
(i.e., nonpublic schools in which public agencies or parents have placed
children with disabilities, State-operated programs, and Department of
Juvenile Justice schools) is available on the School Improvement in
Maryland website. The data and analysis provided by the State
demonstrated correction of the noncompliance.

As noted on pages 37 -- 39 of the APR, the State goal was to establish
baseline data and related information specific to performance and
participation of students with disabilities on the basis of the 2003
MSA. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the outcome of the State's
strategies to achieve the goal of 100% of students achieving proficiency
in the core academic courses by the end of the school year 2013-2014.

[Disproportionality.]{.underline} In addressing evidence of
disproportionate representation, it is appropriate for the State to look
at policies, procedures and practices in the evaluation and
identification process to determine if they are educationally
appropriate, consistent with the requirements of Part B and race
neutral. Such an examination would generally include a review of
policies, procedures and practices at both the State and local level,
with regard to the availability and use of pre-referral intervention
services, the selection and use of evaluation instruments and materials,
the selection and use of evaluation criteria, and the reasons for
referral for special education evaluations. Such reviews would generally
examine policies, procedures and practices from both an educational and
legal perspective to ensure that any proposed revisions are
educationally appropriate and legally consistent with Part B and other
civil rights law. The past and current activities that the State
describes on pages 52-53 and 62-63 appear to be generally consistent
with these principles. For example, MSDE described future activities
including: (1) soliciting a consultant to conduct evaluations of the
effort and effect of technical assistance and support to targeted local
school systems; (2) developing action plans based on the results of the
evaluations; and (3) continuing funding and supporting training of local
school system staff to include competitive grant awards. Use of
numerical or percentage goals based upon race as a means of addressing
disproportionality, however, would raise serious concerns under federal
civil rights laws and the United States Constitution and would not be an
appropriate way to address any potential compliance problems that
significant disproportionality may indicate. In the FFY 2003 APR MSDE
must revise the targets and goals concerning disproportionality
(currently expressed on pages 37, 38, 51, and 61 of the FFY 2002 APR as
percentages of children, by race/ethnicity, within 'expected ranges'
compared to their percentages in the general school population)
consistent with these principles.

In the following areas the State also identified need for, and provided
strategies to achieve improved performance. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing the implementation of these strategies and their impact on
children with disabilities as part of the next APR.

[Increase Graduation and Decrease Dropout Rates]{.underline}. On pages
63-64 of the APR, the State identified a number of strategies it would
implement to improve graduation rates and decrease the rates of students
dropping out before school completion, including developing a voluntary
curriculum as a framework for instruction, developing a new exit
document for students who complete their education but will not receive
a regular diploma, and discretionary grants to LEAs to address
graduation, drop-out and transition issues.

[Suspension and Expulsion rates]{.underline}. On page 64 of the APR
describes activities and timelines to achieve projected targets include
requiring local school systems to submit written reports of results of
internal audits concerning suspension and expulsion rates; audits to be
conducted by State for targeted districts; increased training in
positive behavior intervention; and focused monitoring for several local
school systems.

[Performance of Children with Disabilities on State-wide
Assessments]{.underline}. On pages 64-65, MSDE identifies strategies to
improve performance of children with disabilities on State-wide
assessments, including implementation of voluntary State curriculum,
joint visits with Division of Instruction staff to LEAs to review
reading and math instruction, and identifying and disseminating
effective practices from schools making AYP for students with
disabilities.

[Early Language/Communication, Pre-reading, and Social-Emotional
Skills]{.underline}. On page 50 of the APR, Maryland reported that,
since the 2001-2002 school year, it has administered a State-wide
kindergarten-readiness checklist to all children enrolled in their
kindergarten year, including children with disabilities, and provides
data comparing the performance of children with disabilities to other
students. On page 61, the State identified strategies it is using to
improve performance of children with disabilities on this assessment,
including kindergarten-readiness staff development plans and use of
results for instructional planning, including linkages with a student's
IEP.

## Secondary Transition

On page 67 of the APR, MSDE reported the participation of the graduating
class of 2002 in the High School Graduate Follow-up Study. The data
provides student information regarding plans for post-secondary
activities. Discretionary Grants were awarded to nine local school
systems, for FFY 2003, to assist in the development of programs to
address issues including drop-out and seamless transition.
Post-secondary programs have been developed in eleven of twenty-four
local school systems to promote interaction and instruction in an
age-appropriate setting with nondisabled peers at local community
colleges. By July 2008, to support students with disabilities who do not
meet regular diploma requirements, a Maryland High School Certificate
will be offered with a companion document to provide information
pertaining the graduate's skills and educational experiences.

On page 70 of the APR, MSDE reported that it was collaborating with the
Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning to develop a K-16
Voluntary State Curriculum entitled Maryland Career Development Model.
LEAs have the option to adopt the Model which integrates career
development activities in the educational experiences of children
beginning at the kindergarten level and four years beyond graduation
from high school. By August 2004, MSDE staff will meet with special
education teachers to write curricular objectives.

The State provided data and information in the APR on the percentages of
children participating in various post-school activities compared to
nondisabled students, and reported on State plans to conduct one year
follow-up surveys beginning with the class of 2004. The State identified
the establishment of partnerships with post-secondary education programs
and local school systems as further advancing the State's goal of
increasing the number of children with disabilities who participate in
meaningful post-school activities. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the
State's implementation of these strategies and their impact on children
with disabilities as a part of the next APR.

## Conclusion

As noted above, MSDE must submit to OSEP:

1.  ***General Supervision Cluster***

    a.  [State Complaint Procedures]{.underline} - MSDE must submit a
        plan containing the required information to OSEP within 60 days
        of the date of this letter, including strategies, proposed
        evidence of change, targets, and timelines that will ensure
        correction of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of
        time not to exceed one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan.

    b.  [Impartial Due Process Hearings]{.underline} - MSDE must provide
        evidence of correction of the noncompliance, including
        supporting data and analysis in the FFY 2003 APR, and, in
        addition, a final progress report to OSEP, with data and
        analysis demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but no
        later than 30 days following one year after the date of this
        letter.

    c.  [Monitoring]{.underline} -- MSDE must provide data addressing
        whether MSDE is effectively identifying noncompliance and
        ensuring correction of noncompliance identified through
        monitoring, and using monitoring information to identify
        systemic issues needing correction in the FFY 2003 APR.

2.  ***Early Childhood Transition Cluster*** - The State must provide
    evidence of progress in correcting the noncompliance, including
    current supporting data and analysis, in the FFY 2003 APR and, in
    addition, provide a final progress report to OSEP, with data and
    analysis demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but no later
    than 30 days following one year after the date of this letter.

3.  ***Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive
    Environment Cluster***

    a.  [FAPE/LRE]{.underline} - The State must submit to OSEP, within
        60 days of the date of this letter, data and analysis that
        support the conclusion that the identified noncompliance has
        been corrected. MSDE can satisfy this requirement by providing
        documentation of the LEA corrective action plans developed to
        correct the noncompliance and subsequent follow-up activities
        with documentation demonstrating that correction occurred.

    b.  [Provision of all related services]{.underline} - The State must
        submit to OSEP, within 60 days of the date of this letter, data
        and analysis demonstrating that the identified noncompliance has
        been corrected. MSDE can satisfy this requirement by providing
        documentation that it monitors to ensure that FAPE is provided
        when staff vacancies occur, and of the LEA corrective action
        plans developed to correct the noncompliance and subsequent
        follow-up activities with documentation demonstrating that
        correction occurred.

OSEP plans to conduct a verification visit in the State during the
spring of 2005. One of the primary purposes of this visit will be to
evaluate the implementation of the State's monitoring system and assess
its effectiveness in ensuring correction of identified noncompliance.

We look 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 Michael F. Slade at (202) 205-8969.

Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard for

Stephanie Smith Lee

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Dr. Carol Ann Baglin

[^1]: The areas of noncompliance identified in OSEP's July 26, 2001
    Monitoring Report included failure to ensure that: (1) students with
    disabilities are not removed from the least restrictive environment
    (LRE) in order to receive special education services; (2) all
    related services are provided as a part of a free appropriate public
    education (FAPE); (3) students with disabilities placed in nonpublic
    schools participate in State-wide assessments; and (4) State
    complaint timelines are met, unless exceptional circumstances
    require extensions beyond the 60-day timeframe.

[^2]: MSDE issued State Improvement Plan Progress Reports to OSEP on
    December 20, 2002 and July 2, 2003.

[^3]: This report is available at
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-897.