October 18, 2005

Honorable Rick Melmer

Secretary

Department of Education

700 Governors Drive

Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Melmer:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the South Dakota Department
of Education's (SDDOE's) March 29, 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. OSEP has set out its
comments, analysis and determinations by cluster area.

*Background*

OSEP's FFY 2002 response letter of July 23, 2004 directed SDDOE to
submit, within 60 days of the date of the letter:

(1) either data and analysis showing that it was ensuring correction of
    noncompliance identified through monitoring or a plan including
    strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines to
    ensure correction of noncompliance within a reasonable period of
    time, not to exceed one year from the date OSEP accepted the plan;
    and

(2) analysis of the root cause of the noncompliance related to secondary
    transition requirements as well as analysis of existing strategies
    and whether they were effective (i.e., do they need to be refined or
    targeted) and what additional actions or strategies would assist the
    State in reaching full compliance in this area as soon as possible.
    If the State determines additional strategies were needed or that
    existing strategies must be modified, it was to submit its proposed
    strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines to
    ensure compliance as soon as possible, not to exceed one year of
    when OSEP accepted the plan.

In the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE was required to provide data and analysis
demonstrating progress in correcting the noncompliance and provide a
report to OSEP, with data and analysis demonstrating compliance as soon
as possible, but no later than 30 days following one year after the July
23, 2004 APR letter (August 22, 2005) in the following areas: (1)
parental input into the evaluation process (34 CFR §300.532(b)); and (2)
parental consent to conduct an evaluation (34 CFR §300.505).

Also in the FFY 2003 APR, the State was required to include: (1) the
results of its review of the policies, procedures and practices used by
local educational agencies (LEAs) in the identification and placement of
children with disabilities to ensure they are consistent with the
requirements of Part B, and race-neutral, when the State identifies
significant disproportionality on the basis of race in the
identification or placement of children with disabilities; (2) progress
in ensuring full compliance with the qualified personnel, extended
school year, and early childhood transition requirements; and (3)
include either data (whether collected through sampling, monitoring,
individual IEP review, or other methods), targets for improved
performance and strategies to achieve those targets for the area of
preschool outcomes, or a plan to collect the data, including a detailed
timeline of the activities necessary to implement that plan.

On September 24, 2004, SDDOE submitted a letter to OSEP including data,
analysis, and improvement strategies in response to OSEP's July 23, 2004
letter regarding the State's FFY 2002 APR for Part B of the IDEA. In
OSEP's January 10, 2005 letter to the State, OSEP accepted SDDOE's data,
analysis, and verification of corrective actions. These are addressed in
the appropriate sections below.

***General Supervision***

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

Within 60 days of the July 23, 2004 APR letter, SDDOE was required to
submit to OSEP data and analysis showing that it was ensuring correction
of noncompliance identified through monitoring or a plan including
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines to
ensure correction of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed one year from the date OSEP accepted the plan.

In its September 2004 letter, SDDOE submitted data and analysis showing
that the State was ensuring correction of noncompliance identified
through monitoring. In the letter, SDDOE detailed its Continuous
Improvement Monitoring Process (CIMP) that requires an in-depth
self-assessment and validation process, along with the development of an
improvement plan. SDDOE presented an analysis of the process used to
verify that noncompliance was corrected, including types of
verification, timelines for verification, and sanctions imposed for
districts not implementing the mandatory components of the improvement
plan or if implementation was not effective in correcting identified
noncompliance within twelve months. Further, SDDOE presented data from
the 33 districts monitored in FFY 2002, with the status of corrective
actions throughout the process. As noted in its January 2005 letter,
OSEP accepted SDDOE's data, analysis, and verification of corrective
actions.

On page 2 of FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE presented an update of the process for
ensuring correction of noncompliance. On page 9, SDDOE presented data on
the school districts monitored during the 2003-2004 school year. SDDOE
reported 98% compliance in the area of General Supervision, an increase
of one percent from the 2002-2003 school year. OSEP appreciates the
State's efforts in this area and looks forward to reviewing data and
information demonstrating continued performance in this area in the
State Performance Plan (SPP), due December 2, 2005.

[Formal Written Complaints]{.underline}

On page 1 of Attachment 1 and page 11 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE
included data and analysis regarding formal written complaints. SDDOE
reported that it received 12 complaints during the reporting period
(September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004) and all written complaint
decisions within the reporting period were issued within required
timelines. OSEP appreciates the State's effort in this area and looks
forward to reviewing data and information demonstrating continued
compliance in the area in the SPP.

[Mediation]{.underline}

On page 1 of Attachment 1 and page 11 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE
included data and analysis regarding mediations. The State reported that
five mediations were requested during the reporting period (September 1,
2003 to August 31, 2004). Four of the five resulted in mediation
agreements (the fifth was pending at the end of the reporting period).
OSEP appreciates the State's effort in this area and looks forward to
reviewing data and information related to mediations held that resulted
in mediation agreements, in the SPP.

[Due Process Hearings]{.underline}

On page 1 of Attachment 1 and page 11 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE
included data and analysis regarding due process hearings. The State
reported that five hearings were requested during the reporting period
(September 1, 2003 to August 31, 2004). Only one hearing was held and it
was completed within 45 days. One hearing was pending and the status of
the other three hearings was not reported. In the SPP, OSEP looks
forward to reviewing data on fully adjudicated due process hearing
requests that were fully adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a
timeline that was properly extended by the hearing officer at the
request of either party.

[Personnel]{.underline}

Regulations at 34 CFR §300.135 required that the State have in effect a
comprehensive system of personnel development that is designed to ensure
an adequate supply of qualified special education, regular education and
related services personnel.

SDDOE was required to report in the FFY 2003 APR on its progress in
ensuring full compliance with the personnel requirements, and include
either data (whether collected through sampling, monitoring, individual
IEP review, or other methods), 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.

On pages 13, and 42-46 of the APR, SDDOE reported data and analysis that
demonstrated its progress in correcting the area of noncompliance. On
page 13, SDDOE stated that 6.1 full-time equivalent (FTE) vacancies were
reported by schools districts at the beginning of the 2003-2004 school
year. The chart on pages 45-46 indicated, for that school year,
approximately 11 special education personnel were not appropriately
certified for their positions. This represented improvement as compared
to the 55 uncertified personnel reported for the previous year. The
State identified more than 3000 FTEs involved in providing special
education and related services. On page 13, SDDOE reported one issue
raised through the complaint process alleging a district did not employ
properly certified staff. The district was found to be in compliance. On
pages 9 and 10 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State noted that 98% of the
districts monitored in 2003-2004 were found in compliance regarding the
provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and that
districts were required to correct any identified noncompliance.

On page 14 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included strategies to improve
performance in this area, including a continued partnership with the
Center for Teacher Quality to ensure the systems of certifications were
aligned to appropriate teacher standards and certification systems.
However, as a projected target on page 13, SDDOE stated that it
anticipated that the rate of special education vacancies would increase
slightly, due to projected retirement numbers for current in-service
teachers as well as projected numbers of new graduates. For FYY 2004,
SDDOE anticipated a vacancy rate of no more than 15 FTE. OSEP
appreciates the State's efforts in this area.

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

On pages 14 and 15 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State provided information
about its procedures for collecting and reporting accurate and timely
data. The State did not identify any problems in collecting and
reporting accurate and timely data, but noted that as a result of
consumer feedback it had made a number of upgrades and modifications to
enhance consistency of data collection. OSEP appreciates the State's
effort in this area and looks forward to reviewing data and information
related to accurate and timely data collection and reporting, in the
SPP.

[Other: Extended school year (ESY) services]{.underline}

Regulations at 34 CFR §300.309(a) require that each public agency ensure
that ESY services are available as necessary to provide FAPE. SDDOE was
required to report, in the FFY 2003 APR, its progress in ensuring full
compliance with these requirements. In the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE did not
report progress in ensuring full compliance with the requirements of 34
CFR §300.309(a). Within 60 days from the date of this letter, the State
must provide a report indicating whether the State monitoring system
examined the extent to which ESY requirements were met, whether any
noncompliance regarding the ESY requirements was identified through
monitoring, complaint investigation, or hearings, and whether correction
occurred for any noncompliance identified. OSEP will review this
information and determine what further action, if any, is required.

***Early Childhood Transition***

OSEP's July 2004 letter required SDDOE to report, in the FFY 2003 APR,
its progress in ensuring full compliance with the early childhood
transition requirements at 34 CFR §300.132 (a)-(b). On page 18 of the
FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported that 93% of the three year olds who exited
Part C were evaluated in order to determine Part B eligibility. This
2003-2004 data was a decrease from the 96.5% reported for 2002-2003.
SDDOE reported that 74% of the children were found eligible for
preschool special education services and 19% did not qualify for special
education services. Seven percent (7%) of the three-year-olds exiting
Part C were not evaluated for Part B eligibility. SDDOE attributed this
slippage to parents refusing a referral for preschool when the child
exited Part C and/or the presence of institutional barriers to
completing the evaluation in a timely manner. SDDOE stated that
sometimes parents deferred the eligibility determination until the start
of the school year, especially if the child's birthday fell during the
summer months.

SDDOE reported that the expansion of a pilot project that extended Part
B monitoring to include the verification of Part C exit data, was not an
effective tool to identify potential causes of children not being
determined as eligible before age three. Instead, the Part C coordinator
and Part B director planned to look at the limited numbers of children
who were not transitioned to a determined outcome and provide targeted
assistance based on the findings.

To the extent that failure to evaluate a child referred by Part C to
Part B for eligibility determination, by the child's third birthday was
a function of institutional barriers at the district level, rather than
parent refusal of the referral or a lack of referral because the child
is not suspected to be Part B-eligible, noncompliance remains with the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.132(b).

Early Childhood Transition is an indicator in the SPP under §616 that is
due December 2, 2005. In preparation for this submission, 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 State must submit
responsive baseline data regarding the percentage of children referred
by Part C prior to age three, who are found eligible for Part B and have
an IEP/IFSP developed and implemented by their third birthdays, in the
SPP and account for the reasons for delays for children who do not have
eligibility determined and IEPs in place, if appropriate, by their third
birthdays.

***Parent Involvement***

OSEP's July 2004 letter required SDDOE to provide evidence of progress
in correcting the noncompliance regarding parental input into the
evaluation process (34 CFR §300.532(b)) and parental consent to conduct
an evaluation (34 CFR §300.505), including current supporting data and
its analysis, in the FFY 2003 APR and provide a report to OSEP, with
data and analysis demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but no
later than 30 days following one year after the July 2004 letter.

On pages 20 and 21 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported an improvement in
the percentage of districts compliant with the requirement to obtain
parental consent to conduct an evaluation, from 74% to 94%. However,
other data and information included in the FFY 2003 APR did not indicate
progress in the area of parent input into the evaluation process. On
page 20, SDDOE reported 47% of districts were found to comply with the
requirement that parents be given an opportunity to provide information
about their child as a part of the evaluation process compared with the
84% reported in the FFY 2002 APR. According to SDDOE, districts were
required to address the noncompliance in their improvement plans and
progress reports. SDDOE reported that the slippage in this was due to
districts not documenting contacts with parents. Within 60 days of the
date of this letter, SDDOE must submit data and information
demonstrating correction of the identified noncompliance regarding 34
CFR §§300.505 and 300.532(b). OSEP will review the information and
determine what, if any, further action is needed.

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

[Disproportionality]{.underline}

On page 1 of Attachment 2 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported risk
ratios among racial/ethnic groups in categories for both identification
and settings. SDDOE attributed any disproportionality to the ethnic
composition of the State, which was significantly less diverse than the
national composition. After Caucasian, American Indian was the next
largest ethnic group at less than 10%. Black, Hispanic, and Asian
represented from 0.64% to 1.11% of the total population. SDDOE reported
that, in a sparsely populated State without much diversity, the addition
or reduction of only a few children of a racial/ethnic group could
significantly impact the relative differences. SDDOE reported, "the data
points that are flagged \[as potentially disproportionate\] are the
result of the small numbers being analyzed." On page 23, SDDOE reported
annual training to ensure that appropriate practices were in place and
that the compliance monitoring process included review of policies and
procedures governing evaluation, identification and placement
procedures. Any identified problems were addressed through
individualized improvement plans.

On page 23 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported a projected target of
ensuring district identification procedures were consistent with Part B
requirements and race-neutral, so that children were appropriately
identified for special education and related services. This was a
revision of the target in the FFY 2002 APR that included a numeral goal.
OSEP accepts the revised target.

OSEP's July 2004 letter required SDDOE to include, in its FFY 2003 APR,
the results of the State's review of the policies, procedures and
practices used by LEAs in the identification and placement of children
with disabilities to ensure that they were consistent with the
requirements of Part B, when the State identified significant
disproportionality on the basis of race in the identification or
placement of children with disabilities. SDDOE did not identify
significant disproportionality.

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 plans for collecting this data, in the
SPP.

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

On page 25 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported that 87.3% of students
with disabilities graduated with a regular high school diploma, compared
with 92.3% of students without disabilities. For the students with
disabilities, the graduation rate was a decrease from the 94.1% reported
in FFY 2002. SDDOE attributed the decrease to a change in the method of
calculating the rate of graduation. In the 2002-2003, the calculation
did not include 11^th^ grade dropouts. On page 25, the State reported a
3.5% drop-out rate for students with disabilities, and a 2.6% rate for
students without disabilities. SDDOE noted for the past two years the
State has maintained a higher rate of graduation than the national
baseline. For targets, SDDOE projected a decrease in the drop-out rate
by .5% and an increase in the graduation rate by 2% for students with
disabilities. To achieve the projected targets, SDDOE planned to ensure
effective instructional practices and to support efforts through
dissemination of practices to influence retention. OSEP appreciates the
State's efforts in this area and looks forward to reviewing data and
information on the percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high
school and the percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school,
in the SPP.

[Suspension and expulsion]{.underline}

For the second year, SDDOE reported a rate of less than 0.1% for
children with disabilities suspended for greater than 10 days or
expelled. On page 28 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE stated that training on
the issues related to suspension and expulsion of children was
consistent since the reauthorization of IDEA in 1997. For a projected
target, SDDOE planned to maintain a rate of suspension for children with
disabilities comparable to or less than the rate of suspensions for
children without disabilities. To achieve the target, SDDOE will
continue to require LEAs to address their procedures for suspension and
expulsion of children with disabilities through their comprehensive
plans.

Regulations at 34 CFR §300.146, and the instructions for the FFY 2003
APR require the State educational agency (SEA) to examine data to
determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of
long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities: (1)
among LEAs in the State; or (2) compared to the rates for children
without disabilities within the agencies. If the discrepancies are
occurring, the SEA must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require
the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures and
practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the
use of behavioral interventions and procedural safeguards, to ensure
that these policies, procedures and practices comply with IDEA.

On pages 27 and 28 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State provided State-wide
data comparing the number and rate of suspension and expulsion of
children with disabilities to nondisabled children. The State, however,
did not compare the rates with LEAs to determine if significant
discrepancies were occurring in particular LEAs.

With the SPP, due December 2, 2005, the State must provide either:

\(1\) data and analysis demonstrating that it is meeting the
requirements at 34 CFR §300.146(b) that SDDOE examines data to determine
if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities: (1) among LEAs
in the State; or (2) compared to the rates for children without
disabilities within the agencies. If the discrepancies are occurring,
SDDOE must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected
State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures and practices
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
behavioral interventions and procedural safeguards, to ensure that these
policies, procedures and practices comply with IDEA; or

\(2\) a plan**,** including strategies, proposed evidence of change,
targets and timelines designed to ensure correction of the noncompliance
as soon as possible and not more than one year after OSEP accepts the
plan. No later than six months from the date of this letter, the State
must submit a Progress Report including data and analysis demonstrating
progress toward compliance, and provide a report to OSEP, with data and
analysis demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but not later
than 30 days following the end of the one year timeline.

[Statewide and districtwide assessments]{.underline}

Attachment 3 of the FFY 2003 APR showed consistency between the number
of children enrolled and the number participating in statewide
assessments. Participation data showed that SDDOE achieved the
identified performance target in the FFY 2002 APR of 95% participation
or higher on statewide assessments. SDDOE reported children with
disabilities participated in the statewide assessments at the same level
(99.3%) as children without disabilities. SDDOE tested and reported
results for grades 3 through 8 and grade 12. For 2003-2004, SDDOE
reported the number of children with disabilities performing at basic or
below basic was reduced by 7.14% on the statewide reading assessment and
by 11.5% on the statewide math assessment. The State met its identified
target in the area of math, but did not meet the 10% reduction targeted
for reading. As targets, the State identified the maintenance of a
participation rate of 95% or higher for children with disabilities
taking statewide assessments and the same targets for proficiency rates.
In addition, SDDOE reported that it would establish a baseline of
proficiency rates for children taking the alternate assessment. OSEP
appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks forward to
reviewing data and information demonstrating continued participation and
performance of children with disabilities on statewide assessments, in
the SPP.

[Least restrictive environment (LRE)]{.underline}

On page 33 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported that 98% of the districts
monitored for least restrictive environment (LRE) requirements were
found in compliance. This is an improvement from the 95% rate reported
during the previous reporting period. SDDOE set maintaining the number
of children with disabilities reported as receiving special education
services in the general education classroom at 55% or higher as a
projected target. Also, the State will increase the number of
three-year-old children with disabilities in less restrictive settings
(home, early childhood). To achieve the projected targets, the State
will continue to provide training and technical assistance on ensuring
placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive
environment throughout the State, both through document dissemination
and the provision of technical assistance.

SDDOE reported that 55% of the children with disabilities were placed in
regular classrooms, with modifications as necessary, for the majority of
the school day. On page 35, the State reported that the number of
children with disabilities receiving early childhood special education
did not change significantly across the continuum of placements;
therefore, the State did not achieve its target of a 10% decrease in of
preschool children receiving special education in isolated settings.
OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks forward to
reviewing LRE data in the SPP.

[Preschool performance outcomes]{.underline}

During the FFY 2003 reporting period, SDDOE developed the Early Learning
Guideline for Language and Literacy for ages 3-5. On page 36 of the FFY
2003 APR, the State reported that several meetings were held from Summer
2003 through Spring 2004. Public comment was received and incorporated
into the language and literacy guidelines. As a projected target, SDDOE
indicated that it would finalize the literacy, math, and social
emotional standards, incorporate them into one document and present that
document to the State Board of Education for approval. Future activities
to achieve project targets included continued participation of special
education staff in the development of the early learning standards.

# The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area, for which States must provide baseline 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 on the status of the State's performance and compliance required under section 616(d) of the IDEA. The State should carefully review the instructions to the SPP in developing its plans for this collection.

***Secondary Transition***

OSEP's July 2004 letter required SDDOE to submit, within 60 days of the
date of that letter, its analysis of existing strategies and whether
they were effective (i.e., did they need to be refined or targeted) and
what additional actions or strategies might assist the State in reaching
full compliance in this area as soon as possible. If the State
determined that additional strategies were needed or that existing
strategies must be modified, it was to also submit its proposed
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines to
ensure compliance.

SDDOE's September 2004 letter included an analysis of the root cause of
the noncompliance relating to secondary transition requirements, as well
as an analysis of existing strategies. SDDOE evaluated the effectiveness
of current strategies and made adjustments to improve outcomes in this
area. SDDOE presented FFY 2002 data from the 33 districts monitored in
the year. Twenty-two districts were cited in the area of secondary
transition. Of those 22, 21 demonstrated correction of the noncompliance
within a year of identification. One district was granted a six-month
extension to complete the required corrective action. OSEP accepted
SDDOE's data, analysis, and verification of corrective actions in its
January 2005 letter.

On pages 38 through 40 of the FFY 2003 APR, SDDOE reported the number of
districts out of compliance in all areas of secondary transition
decreased during the 2003-2004 reporting period. SDDOE reported that
districts identified in the FFY 2002 APR as noncompliant with secondary
transition requirements, demonstrated full compliance within a year of
identification. School districts identified in 2003-2004 submitted, and
received approval for, improvement plans and were in the process of
demonstrating compliance. SDDOE stated that it expected to demonstrate
significant improvement in compliance in 2004-2005, due to the
implementation of the new transition template, statewide regional
training on secondary transition, and an emphasis on the legal
requirements for transition services through the Continuous Improvement
Monitoring Process (CIMP).

The State determined that the planned activity to collect outcomes data
through the State vocational rehabilitation office was not a feasible
vehicle to use to collect postsecondary student outcomes. SDDOE planned
to explore the possibility of using an outside contractor to collect
post-school outcome data.

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). Absence of this information at that time will be considered in
OSEP's annual determination on the status of the state's performance and
compliance required under §616(d) of the IDEA. SDDOE should carefully
review the instructions to the SPP in developing its plans for this
collection.

***Conclusion***

As noted above, within 60 days of the date of this letter, SDDOE must
submit:

(1) a report indicating whether the State monitoring system examined the
    extent to which ESY requirements of 34 CFR §300.309 were met,
    whether any noncompliance regarding the ESY requirements was
    identified through monitoring, complaint investigation, or hearings,
    and whether correction occurred for any noncompliance identified;
    and

(2) data and information demonstrating correction of the identified
    noncompliance regarding 34 CFR §§300.505 and 300.532(b) concerning
    parent consent and input in the evaluation process.

In addition, with the SPP, due December 2, 2005, the State must provide
either:

\(1\) data and analysis demonstrating that it is meeting the
requirements at 34 CFR §300.146(b) that SDDOE examines data to determine
if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities: (1) among LEAs
in the State; or (2) compared to the rates for children without
disabilities within the agencies. If the discrepancies are occurring,
SDDOE must review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the affected
State agency or LEA to revise) its policies, procedures and practices
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of
behavioral interventions and procedural safeguards, to ensure that these
policies, procedures and practices comply with IDEA; or

> \(2\) a plan**,** including strategies, proposed evidence of change,
> targets and timelines designed to ensure correction of the
> noncompliance as soon as possible and not more than one year after
> OSEP accepts the plan. No later than six months from the date of this
> letter, the State must submit a Progress Report including data and
> analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance, and provide a
> report to OSEP, with data and analysis demonstrating compliance, as
> soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following the end of the
> one year timeline.

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, similar to 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 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
Tony G. Williams at (202) 245-7577.

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

cc: Ann Larsen