Federated States of Micronesia Part B FFY 2005 SPP/APR Response Table

+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **Monitoring        | **Status**  | **OSEP Analysis/Next Steps**     |
| Priorities and      |             |                                  |
| Indicators**        |             |                                  |
+=====================+=============+==================================+
| **Monitoring        |             |                                  |
| Priority: FAPE in   |             |                                  |
| the LRE**           |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 1.  Percent of      | FSM's FFY   | FSM revised the improvement      |
|     youth with IEPs | 2005        | activities in the APR and OSEP   |
|     graduating from | reported    | accepts those revisions. The     |
|     high school     | data for    | revised improvement activities   |
|     with a regular  | this        | must be added to the SPP.        |
|     diploma         | indicator   |                                  |
|     compared to     | are 83%.    | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
|     percent of all  | FSM met its | response letter required FSM to  |
|     youth in the    | FFY 2005    | reconsider its baseline data for |
|     State           | target of   | this indicator in the FFY 2005   |
|     graduating with | 74%.        | APR, due February 1, 2007, and   |
|     a regular       |             | provide accurate, updated data   |
|     diploma.        |             | and improvement activities. In   |
|                     |             | the FFY 2005 APR, FSM explained  |
| \[Results           |             | that in the data reported for    |
| Indicator\]         |             | FFY 2004, the number of          |
|                     |             | graduating seniors with IEPs was |
|                     |             | accurate. FSM met its target and |
|                     |             | OSEP appreciates FSM's efforts   |
|                     |             | to improve performance.          |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 2.  Percent of      | FSM's FFY   | FSM revised the improvement      |
|     youth with IEPs | 2005        | activities in the APR and OSEP   |
|     dropping out of | reported    | accepts those revisions. The     |
|     high school     | data for    | revised improvement activities   |
|     compared to the | this        | must be added to the SPP.        |
|     percent of all  | indicator   |                                  |
|     youth in the    | are 1%. FSM | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
|     State dropping  | met its FFY | response letter required FSM to  |
|     out of high     | 2005 target | reconsider its baseline data for |
|     school.         | of 3%.      | this indicator in the FFY 2005   |
|                     |             | APR, due February 1, 2007, and   |
| \[Results           |             | provide accurate, updated data   |
| Indicator\]         |             | and improvement activities. FSM  |
|                     |             | confirmed the accuracy of its    |
|                     |             | baseline data.                   |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | FSM met its target and OSEP      |
|                     |             | appreciates FSM's efforts to     |
|                     |             | improve performance.             |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation   | Indicator   | FSM is not required to submit    |
| and performance of  | 3A is not   | data for Indicator 3A.           |
| children with       | applicable  |                                  |
| disabilities on     | to FSM      |                                  |
| statewide           | because FSM |                                  |
| assessments:        | is not a    |                                  |
|                     | recipient   |                                  |
| A. Percent of       | of funds    |                                  |
| districts that have | from the No |                                  |
| a disability        | Child Left  |                                  |
| subgroup that meets | Behind Act. |                                  |
| the State's minimum |             |                                  |
| "n" size meeting    |             |                                  |
| the State's AYP     |             |                                  |
| objectives for      |             |                                  |
| progress for        |             |                                  |
| disability          |             |                                  |
| subgroup.           |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation   | FSM's FFY   | FSM revised the improvement      |
| and performance of  | 2005        | activities for this indicator in |
| children with       | reported    | its APR and OSEP accepts those   |
| disabilities on     | data for    | revisions. FSM must add these    |
| statewide           | this        | revisions to the SPP. OSEP looks |
| assessments:        | indicator   | forward to reviewing FSM's data  |
|                     | are 41% for | demonstrating improved           |
| B. Participation    | reading and | performance in the FFY 2006 APR  |
| rate for children   | 39% for     | due February 1, 2008.            |
| with IEPs in a      | math. This  |                                  |
| regular assessment  | represents  | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
| with no             | slippage    | response letter required FSM to  |
| accommodations;     | from FFY    | include in the FFY 2005 APR, due |
| regular assessment  | 2004 data   | February 1, 2007, baseline data  |
| with                | of 43% for  | for the participation of         |
| accommodations;     | reading;    | children with disabilities in    |
| alternate           | the data    | alternate assessments, and data  |
| assessment against  | for math    | demonstrating the correction of  |
| grade level         | stayed the  | prior noncompliance with the     |
| standards;          | same. FSM   | requirements of 34 CFR §§300.138 |
| alternate           | did not     | and 300.139 (now 34 CFR          |
| assessment against  | meet its    | §300.160). In its FFY 2005 APR,  |
| alternate           | FFY 2005    | FSM stated that it was not able  |
| achievement         | target of   | to implement its alternate       |
| standards.          | 60%.        | assessments for the 2005-2006    |
|                     |             | school year and therefore did    |
| \[Results           | Prior       | not provide data on alternate    |
| Indicator\]         | no          | assessments and did not timely   |
|                     | ncompliance | correct identified noncompliance |
|                     | not         | with these requirements. FSM     |
|                     | corrected.  | provided revised improvement     |
|                     |             | activities for implementing      |
|                     |             | alternate assessments.           |
|                     |             | Furthermore, in its FFY 2005     |
|                     |             | APR, FSM reported that no        |
|                     |             | children with disabilities took  |
|                     |             | the NST with accommodations and  |
|                     |             | acknowledged that this raised    |
|                     |             | concerns regarding the           |
|                     |             | effectiveness of the IEP         |
|                     |             | participation determination by   |
|                     |             | the IEP team or the              |
|                     |             | communication between each FSM   |
|                     |             | State LEA Special Education      |
|                     |             | office and the Assessment Team   |
|                     |             | administering the NST.           |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | In the FFY 2006 APR, due         |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008, FSM must       |
|                     |             | provide data and information     |
|                     |             | demonstrating that FSM has: (1)  |
|                     |             | developed and distributed        |
|                     |             | accommodation guidelines, as     |
|                     |             | required by 34 CFR §300.160(b);  |
|                     |             | and (2) developed and            |
|                     |             | implemented alternate            |
|                     |             | assessments and guidelines for   |
|                     |             | the participation of children    |
|                     |             | with disabilities in alternate   |
|                     |             | assessments for those children   |
|                     |             | who cannot participate in        |
|                     |             | regular assessments, even with   |
|                     |             | accommodations, as indicated in  |
|                     |             | their respective IEPs, as        |
|                     |             | required by 34 CFR               |
|                     |             | §300.160(c)(1).                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Participation   | FFY 2005    | FSM revised the improvement      |
| and performance of  | reported    | activities and targets for this  |
| children with       | data for    | indicator in its APR and OSEP    |
| disabilities on     | this        | accepts those revisions. The     |
| statewide           | indicator   | improvement activities and       |
| assessments:        | are 7% for  | targets must be added to the     |
|                     | reading and | SPP.                             |
| C. Proficiency rate | 3% for      |                                  |
| for children with   | math.       | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
| IEPs against grade  |             | response letter required FSM to  |
| level standards and |             | include in the FFY 2005 APR, due |
| alternate           |             | February 1, 2007, baseline data  |
| achievement         |             | regarding the performance of     |
| standards.          |             | children with disabilities on    |
|                     |             | the NST and alternate            |
| \[Results           |             | assessments, because FSM did not |
| Indicator\]         |             | provide baseline data for this   |
|                     |             | indicator in the FFY 2004 SPP.   |
|                     |             | FSM provided data for            |
|                     |             | performance of children with     |
|                     |             | disabilities on the NST. FSM     |
|                     |             | stated that no alternate         |
|                     |             | assessments were administered to |
|                     |             | children with disabilities, and  |
|                     |             | the data indicated that no       |
|                     |             | children with disabilities took  |
|                     |             | the NST with accommodations. FSM |
|                     |             | must provide data on performance |
|                     |             | for children taking the NST with |
|                     |             | alternate assessments and        |
|                     |             | accommodations in the FFY 2006   |
|                     |             | APR, due February 1, 2008.       |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | OSEP looks forward to reviewing  |
|                     |             | FSM's proficiency data           |
|                     |             | demonstrating improvement in     |
|                     |             | performance in the FFY 2006 APR, |
|                     |             | due February 1, 2008.            |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 4\. Rates of        | FSM's FFY   | FSM reported that no children    |
| suspension and      | 2005        | with disabilities were suspended |
| expulsion:          | reported    | or expelled for greater than 10  |
|                     | data are    | days in a school year. OSEP      |
| A. Percent of       | 0%.         | appreciates FSM's efforts to     |
| districts           |             | improve performance.             |
| identified by the   |             |                                  |
| State as having a   |             | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
| significant         |             | response letter referenced FSM's |
| discrepancy in the  |             | difficulties with implementing   |
| rates of            |             | its data system. FSM reported in |
| suspensions and     |             | its FFY 2005 APR that the        |
| expulsions of       |             | collection of suspension and     |
| children with       |             | expulsion data is not            |
| disabilities for    |             | consistently maintained in the   |
| greater than 10     |             | schools. In the FFY 2006 APR,    |
| days in a school    |             | due February 1, 2008, FSM must   |
| year; and           |             | provide information on the       |
|                     |             | status of data collection for    |
| \[Results           |             | suspensions and expulsions of    |
| Indicator\]         |             | children with disabilities.      |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 4\. Rates of        | Not         | > This indicator is not          |
| suspension and      | applicable. | > applicable to FSM as the only  |
| expulsion:          |             | > racial/ethnic group present is |
|                     |             | > Asian/Pacific Islander.        |
| B. Percent of       |             |                                  |
| districts           |             |                                  |
| identified by the   |             |                                  |
| State as having a   |             |                                  |
| significant         |             |                                  |
| discrepancy in the  |             |                                  |
| rates of            |             |                                  |
| suspensions and     |             |                                  |
| expulsions of       |             |                                  |
| greater than 10     |             |                                  |
| days in a school    |             |                                  |
| year of children    |             |                                  |
| with disabilities   |             |                                  |
| by race and         |             |                                  |
| ethnicity.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 5\. Percent of      | A. FSM's    | OSEP looks forward to the FSM's  |
| children with IEPs  | FFY 2005    | data demonstrating improvement   |
| aged 6 through 21:  | reported    | in performance in the FFY 2006   |
|                     | data for    | APR, due February 1, 2008.       |
| A. Removed from     | this        |                                  |
| regular class less  | indicator   | FSM reported in its FFY 2005 APR |
| than 21% of the     | are 93%.    | that it is planning on           |
| day;                | This        | reassessing its targets for this |
|                     | represents  | indicator based on data provided |
| B. Removed from     | slippage    | by Chuuk. OSEP recommends that   |
| regular class       | from FFY    | FSM reexamine its target for     |
| greater than 60% of | 2004 data   | Indicator 5B. A target of 0% is  |
| the day; or         | of 97%. FSM | not appropriate for this         |
|                     | did not     | indicator as it is not           |
| C. Served in public | meet its    | consistent with the requirement  |
| or private separate | FFY 2005    | for FSM to have a continuum of   |
| schools,            | target of   | alternative placements available |
| residential         | 97%.        | to meet the needs of children    |
| placements, or      |             | with disabilities, as provided   |
| homebound or        | B. FSM's    | by 34 CFR §300.115.              |
| hospital            | FFY 2005    |                                  |
| placements.         | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data for    |                                  |
| \[Results           | this        |                                  |
| Indicator\]         | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | are 0%. FSM |                                  |
|                     | met its FFY |                                  |
|                     | 2005 target |                                  |
|                     | of 0%.      |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     | C. FSM's    |                                  |
|                     | FFY 2005    |                                  |
|                     | reported    |                                  |
|                     | data for    |                                  |
|                     | this        |                                  |
|                     | indicator   |                                  |
|                     | are 7%.     |                                  |
|                     | This        |                                  |
|                     | represents  |                                  |
|                     | slippage    |                                  |
|                     | from FFY    |                                  |
|                     | 2004 data   |                                  |
|                     | of 3%. FSM  |                                  |
|                     | did not     |                                  |
|                     | meet its    |                                  |
|                     | FFY 2005    |                                  |
|                     | target of   |                                  |
|                     | 3%.         |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 6\. Percent of      | FSM's FFY   | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
| preschool children  | 2005        | response letter required FSM to  |
| with IEPs who       | reported    | include in the FFY 2005 APR, due |
| received special    | data for    | February 1, 2007, data on the    |
| education and       | this        | number of children with IEPs     |
| related services in | indicator   | aged 3 through 5 in Chuuk, and   |
| settings with       | are 34%.    | the number of such children in   |
| typically           | FSM met its | settings with typically          |
| developing peers    | FFY 2005    | developing peers. FSM was also   |
| (i.e., early        | target of   | required to provide an           |
| childhood settings, | 30%.        | explanation of the setting for   |
| home, and part-time |             | each child with an IEP aged 3    |
| early               |             | through 5 in Chuuk, analyze that |
| childhood/part-time |             | data and information, and make a |
| early childhood     |             | determination regarding          |
| special education   |             | compliance with the requirements |
| settings).          |             | at 34 CFR §§300.550-300.552 (now |
|                     |             | 34 CFR §§300.114-300.116).       |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             | In its FFY 2005 APR, FSM         |
|                     |             | provided data from Chuuk in      |
|                     |             | response to OSEP's March 20,     |
|                     |             | 2006 letter indicating that 34   |
|                     |             | out of 239 (14%) preschool       |
|                     |             | children with IEPs received      |
|                     |             | special education and related    |
|                     |             | services in settings with        |
|                     |             | typically developing peers. FSM  |
|                     |             | reported that for FFY 2005,      |
|                     |             | Chuuk automatically assigned the |
|                     |             | segregated setting as the        |
|                     |             | placement for all preschool      |
|                     |             | children and identified          |
|                     |             | noncompliance in Chuuk with the  |
|                     |             | requirements at 34 CFR           |
|                     |             | §§300.114-300.116. In the FFY    |
|                     |             | 2005 APR, FSM included a plan to |
|                     |             | correct this noncompliance, with |
|                     |             | strategies, proposed evidence of |
|                     |             | change, and targets, but did not |
|                     |             | provide timelines for correction |
|                     |             | of noncompliance.                |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | In the FFY 2006 APR, due         |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008, in addition to |
|                     |             | the information required to be   |
|                     |             | reported for Indicator 6, FSM    |
|                     |             | must document that it has        |
|                     |             | updated its plan to include      |
|                     |             | timelines for correction of this |
|                     |             | noncompliance as soon as         |
|                     |             | possible, but no later than one  |
|                     |             | year from September 2006, when   |
|                     |             | FSM identified the noncompliance |
|                     |             | in Chuuk, and provide updated    |
|                     |             | data and information for         |
|                     |             | 2006--2007 regarding the number  |
|                     |             | of children with IEPs aged 3     |
|                     |             | through 5 in Chuuk, and the      |
|                     |             | number of such children who      |
|                     |             | received special education and   |
|                     |             | related services in settings     |
|                     |             | with typically developing peers. |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | FSM met its target, and OSEP     |
|                     |             | appreciates FSM's efforts to     |
|                     |             | improve performance.             |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | Please note that, due to changes |
|                     |             | in the 618 State-reported data   |
|                     |             | collection, this indicator will  |
|                     |             | change for the FFY 2006 APR, due |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008. States will be |
|                     |             | required to describe how they    |
|                     |             | will collect valid and reliable  |
|                     |             | data to provide baseline and     |
|                     |             | targets in the FFY 2007 APR, due |
|                     |             | February 1, 2009.                |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 7\. Percent of      | Entry data  | FSM reported the required entry  |
| preschool children  | provided.   | data and activities. FSM must    |
| with IEPs who       |             | provide progress data and        |
| demonstrate         |             | improvement activities with the  |
| improved:           |             | FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,    |
|                     |             | 2008.                            |
| A.  Positive        |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
|    social-emotional |             |                                  |
|     skills          |             |                                  |
|     (including      |             |                                  |
|     social          |             |                                  |
|     relationships); |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| B.  Acquisition and |             |                                  |
|     use of          |             |                                  |
|     knowledge and   |             |                                  |
|     skills          |             |                                  |
|     (including      |             |                                  |
|     early language/ |             |                                  |
|     communication   |             |                                  |
|     and early       |             |                                  |
|     literacy); and  |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| C.  Use of          |             |                                  |
|     appropriate     |             |                                  |
|     behaviors to    |             |                                  |
|     meet their      |             |                                  |
|     needs.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 8\. Percent of      | FSM's FFY   | FSM provided baseline data,      |
| parents with a      | 2005        | targets and improvement          |
| child receiving     | reported    | activities and OSEP accepts the  |
| special education   | baseline    | SPP for this indicator. FSM's    |
| services who report | data for    | data for Indicator 8 is based on |
| that schools        | this        | a pilot of a survey of parents.  |
| facilitated parent  | indicator   | FSM acknowledged that this pilot |
| involvement as a    | are 39%.    | is not representative of parents |
| means of improving  |             | in FSM and plans on surveying    |
| services and        |             | all parents starting in May      |
| results for         |             | 2007.                            |
| children with       |             |                                  |
| disabilities.       |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **Monitoring        |             |                                  |
| Priority:           |             |                                  |
| D                   |             |                                  |
| isproportionality** |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 9\. Percent of      | Not         | This indicator is not applicable |
| districts with      | applicable. | to FSM as the only racial/ethnic |
| disproportionate    |             | group present is Asian/Pacific   |
| representation of   |             | Islander.                        |
| racial and ethnic   |             |                                  |
| groups in special   |             |                                  |
| education and       |             |                                  |
| related services    |             |                                  |
| that is the result  |             |                                  |
| of inappropriate    |             |                                  |
| identification.     |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Compliance        |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 10\. Percent of     | Not         | This indicator is not applicable |
| districts with      | applicable. | to FSM as the only racial/ethnic |
| disproportionate    |             | group present is Asian/Pacific   |
| representation of   |             | Islander.                        |
| racial and ethnic   |             |                                  |
| groups in specific  |             |                                  |
| disability          |             |                                  |
| categories that is  |             |                                  |
| the result of       |             |                                  |
| inappropriate       |             |                                  |
| identification.     |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Compliance        |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| **Monitoring        |             |                                  |
| Priority: Effective |             |                                  |
| General             |             |                                  |
| Supervision**       |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 11\. Percent of     | FSM's FFY   | > FSM provided baseline data,    |
| children with       | 2005        | > targets and improvement        |
| parental consent to | reported    | > activities and OSEP accepts    |
| evaluate, who were  | baseline    | > the SPP for this indicator.    |
| evaluated within 60 | data for    |                                  |
| days (or            | this        | OSEP notes that the data         |
| State-established   | indicator   | provided by FSM for this         |
| timeline).          | are 95%.    | indicator does not include data  |
|                     | FSM did not | from Chuuk. In the FFY 2006 APR, |
| \[Compliance        | meet the    | FSM must include data from Chuuk |
| Indicator; New\]    | FFY 2005    | in its response to Indicator 11. |
|                     | target of   |                                  |
|                     | 100%.       | OSEP looks forward to reviewing  |
|                     |             | data in the FFY 2006 APR, due    |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008, that           |
|                     |             | demonstrate compliance with the  |
|                     |             | requirements of 34 CFR           |
|                     |             | §300.301(c)(1).                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 12\. Percent of     | Not         | FSM is not an eligible applicant |
| children referred   | applicable. | under the Part C program.        |
| by Part C prior to  |             |                                  |
| age 3, who are      |             |                                  |
| found eligible for  |             |                                  |
| Part B, and who     |             |                                  |
| have an IEP         |             |                                  |
| developed and       |             |                                  |
| implemented by      |             |                                  |
| their third         |             |                                  |
| birthdays.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Compliance        |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 13\. Percent of     | FSM's FFY   | > FSM provided baseline data,    |
| youth aged 16 and   | 2005        | > targets and improvement        |
| above with an IEP   | baseline    | > activities and OSEP accepts    |
| that includes       | data for    | > the SPP for this indicator.    |
| coordinated,        | this        |                                  |
| measurable, annual  | indicator   | The data for this indicator did  |
| IEP goals and       | are 47%.    | not include data from Chuuk. In  |
| transition services | FSM did not | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
| that will           | meet the    | 1, 2008, FSM must include data   |
| reasonably enable   | FFY 2005    | from Chuuk in this indicator.    |
| the student to meet | target of   | FSM reported in Indicator 15 of  |
| the post-secondary  | 100%.       | its FFY 2005 APR that prior      |
| goals.              |             | noncompliance with 34 CFR        |
|                     |             | §300.320(b) regarding transition |
| \[Compliance        |             | goals and services in the IEP,   |
| Indicator; New\]    |             | was partially corrected in a     |
|                     |             | timely manner.                   |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | FSM must review its improvement  |
|                     |             | activities and revise, if        |
|                     |             | appropriate, to ensure they will |
|                     |             | enable FSM to include data in    |
|                     |             | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
|                     |             | 1, 2008 that demonstrate         |
|                     |             | compliance with the requirements |
|                     |             | of 34 CFR §300.320(b), including |
|                     |             | correction of noncompliance      |
|                     |             | identified prior to and          |
|                     |             | including FFY 2005.              |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 14\. Percent of     | A plan that | FSM reported the required entry  |
| youth who had IEPs, | describes   | data and activities. FSM must    |
| are no longer in    | how data    | provide baseline data, targets,  |
| secondary school    | will be     | and improvement activities with  |
| and who have been   | collected   | the FFY 2006 APR, due February   |
| competitively       | for         | 1, 2008.                         |
| employed, enrolled  | submission  |                                  |
| in some type of     | with the    |                                  |
| post-secondary      | APR due     |                                  |
| school, or both,    | February 1, |                                  |
| within one year of  | 2008 was    |                                  |
| leaving high        | provided.   |                                  |
| school.             |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 15\. General        | FSM's FFY   | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
| supervision system  | 2005        | response letter required FSM to  |
| (including          | reported    | include in its FFY 2005 APR, due |
| monitoring,         | data for    | February 1, 2007: (1) baseline   |
| complaints,         | this        | data for FFY 2004 and progress   |
| hearings, etc.)     | indicator   | data for FFY 2005; and (2) FSM's |
| identifies and      | are 60%.    | determination about whether the  |
| corrects            | FSM did not | improvement activities in the    |
| noncompliance as    | meet its    | FFY 2004 SPP should be modified  |
| soon as possible    | FFY 2005    | so that FSM could meet its       |
| but in no case      | target of   | targets for this indicator.      |
| later than one year | 100%.       |                                  |
| from                |             | In response to OSEP's March 20,  |
| identification.     |             | 2006 letter, FSM provided data   |
|                     |             | from 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.    |
| \[Compliance        |             | However, the baseline data for   |
| Indicator\]         |             | FFY 2004 should have included    |
|                     |             | the number of findings of        |
|                     |             | noncompliance made by FSM in     |
|                     |             | 2003--2004 that were corrected   |
|                     |             | in 2004--2005; progress data for |
|                     |             | FFY 2005 should have been the    |
|                     |             | number of findings of            |
|                     |             | noncompliance made by FSM in     |
|                     |             | 2004--2005 and corrected in      |
|                     |             | 2005--2006. OSEP understands     |
|                     |             | that its response letter may not |
|                     |             | have provided sufficient         |
|                     |             | direction to FSM and will accept |
|                     |             | its FFY 2005 reported data       |
|                     |             | (noncompliance identified in     |
|                     |             | 2004--2005 and corrected in a    |
|                     |             | timely manner) as its baseline   |
|                     |             | data for this indicator.         |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | Although FSM reported a 50%      |
|                     |             | level of correction, OSEP        |
|                     |             | recalculated the data provided   |
|                     |             | by FSM and determined that FSM   |
|                     |             | made 5 findings of noncompliance |
|                     |             | within 2004--2005and corrected 3 |
|                     |             | of those findings in a timely    |
|                     |             | manner, for a rate of 60%        |
|                     |             | correction. The 5 findings are   |
|                     |             | numbers 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9         |
|                     |             | reported by FSM in Indicator 15. |
|                     |             | FSM determined not to revise the |
|                     |             | improvement activities in the    |
|                     |             | FFY 2005 APR, but to revise its  |
|                     |             | Continuous Improvement           |
|                     |             | Monitoring System to address     |
|                     |             | OSEP's concerns regarding        |
|                     |             | activities needed to meet its    |
|                     |             | targets for this indicator.      |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | OSEP looks forward to reviewing  |
|                     |             | data in the FFY 2006 APR, due    |
|                     |             | February 1, 2008, that           |
|                     |             | demonstrate compliance with the  |
|                     |             | requirements in 20 U.S.C.        |
|                     |             | 1232d(b)(3)(E), and 34 CFR       |
|                     |             | §§300.149 and 300.600. In its    |
|                     |             | response to Indicator 15 in the  |
|                     |             | FFY 2006 APR, due February 1,    |
|                     |             | 2008, FSM must disaggregate by   |
|                     |             | APR indicator the status of      |
|                     |             | timely correction of the         |
|                     |             | noncompliance findings           |
|                     |             | identified by FSM during         |
|                     |             | 2004--2005 (FFY 2005) and during |
|                     |             | 2005--2006 (FFY 2006). In        |
|                     |             | addition, FSM must, in           |
|                     |             | responding to Indicators 3(B),   |
|                     |             | 6, 11, and 13 specifically       |
|                     |             | identify and address the         |
|                     |             | noncompliance identified in this |
|                     |             | table under those indicators.    |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 16\. Percent of     | FSM had no  | FSM had no written complaints in |
| signed written      | written     | FFY 2005.                        |
| complaints with     | complaints  |                                  |
| reports issues that | in FFY      |                                  |
| were resolved       | 2005.       |                                  |
| within 60-day       |             |                                  |
| timeline or a       |             |                                  |
| timeline extended   |             |                                  |
| for exceptional     |             |                                  |
| circumstances with  |             |                                  |
| respect to a        |             |                                  |
| particular          |             |                                  |
| complaint.          |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| (Compliance         |             |                                  |
| Indicator)          |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 17\. Percent of     | FSM had no  | FSM had no due process hearings  |
| fully adjudicated   | due process | in FFY 2005.                     |
| due process hearing | hearings in |                                  |
| requests that were  | FFY 2005.   |                                  |
| fully adjudicated   |             |                                  |
| within the 45-day   |             |                                  |
| timeline or a       |             |                                  |
| timeline that is    |             |                                  |
| properly extended   |             |                                  |
| by the hearing      |             |                                  |
| officer at the      |             |                                  |
| request of either   |             |                                  |
| party.              |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Compliance        |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 18\. Percent of     | FSM         | > FSM is not required to provide |
| hearing requests    | reported no | > baseline targets or            |
| that went to        | resolutions | > improvement activities until   |
| resolution sessions | sessions    | > any FFY in which 10 or more    |
| that were resolved  | held.       | > resolution sessions were held. |
| through resolution  |             |                                  |
| session settlement  |             |                                  |
| agreements.         |             |                                  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator; New\]    |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 19\. Percent of     | FSM         | FSM is not required to provide   |
| mediations held     | reported no | targets or improvement           |
| that resulted in    | mediations. | activities for this indicator    |
| mediation           |             | until any FFY in which 10 or     |
| agreements.         |             | more mediations were conducted.  |
|                     |             |                                  |
| \[Results           |             |                                  |
| Indicator\]         |             |                                  |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+
| 20\. State reported | FSM's FFY   | OSEP's March 20, 2006 SPP        |
| data (618 and State | 2005        | response letter required FSM to  |
| Performance Plan    | reported    | reconsider the baseline data for |
| and Annual          | data for    | Indicators 1 and 2 of the SPP in |
| Performance Report) | this        | the FFY 2005 APR, due February   |
| are timely and      | indicator   | 1, 2007, and to ensure that any  |
| accurate.           | are 75%.    | activities or strategies         |
|                     | FSM did not | regarding Indicator 20 result in |
| \[Compliance        | meet its    | the collection of the required   |
| Indicator\]         | FFY 2005    | baseline data for the required   |
|                     | target of   | time period and the baseline     |
|                     | 100%.       | data and any other required data |
|                     |             | reported in the FFY APR due      |
|                     |             | February 1, 2007. FSM reported   |
|                     |             | that its baseline data for       |
|                     |             | Indicators 1 and 2 were          |
|                     |             | accurate.                        |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | Westat's December 26, 2006 email |
|                     |             | to FSM indicated personnel,      |
|                     |             | exiting, and discipline data     |
|                     |             | required under section 618 of    |
|                     |             | IDEA were not submitted timely.  |
|                     |             |                                  |
|                     |             | FSM's data indicates             |
|                     |             | noncompliance with the           |
|                     |             | requirements in IDEA section 618 |
|                     |             | and 34 CFR §§76.720 and          |
|                     |             | 300.601(b). FSM must review its  |
|                     |             | improvement strategies and       |
|                     |             | revise them, if appropriate, to  |
|                     |             | ensure that they will enable FSM |
|                     |             | to include data in the FFY 2006  |
|                     |             | APR, due February 1, 2008, that  |
|                     |             | demonstrate compliance with the  |
|                     |             | requirements in IDEA section 618 |
|                     |             | and 34 CFR §§76.720 and          |
|                     |             | 300.601(b).                      |
+---------------------+-------------+----------------------------------+