FEBRUARY 6 1996

Honorable Suellen K. Reed

Superintendent of Public Instruction

State Department of Education

State House, Room 229

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2798

Dear Dr. Reed:

During the week of September 18, 1995, the Office of Special Education
Programs (OSEP), United States Department of Education, conducted an
on-sits review of the Indiana Department of Education's (IDE)
implementation of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (Part B). The purpose of the review was to determine whether IDE is
meeting its responsibility to ensure that its educational programs for
children with disabilities are administered in a manner consistent with
the requirements of Part B. Enclosure A to this letter describes OSEP's
monitoring methodology and corrective action procedures; Enclosure B
lists several commendable initiatives; and our findings are in Enclosure
C.

Our review revealed that the actions IDE took in response to OSEP's
prior monitoring report of February 1992 seem to have been effective in
resolving at least two problems identified in that report. During the
current review we found n o deficiencies in the areas of due process
hearings and the investigation of complaints \-- areas where IDE took
corrective action subsequent to our 1992 report. OSEP monitors noted
that due process hearings and complaint investigations rarely exceeded
established timelines, and that the resolution in these processes was
consistent with Federal and State guidelines.

We also saw noteworthy IDE initiatives for providing special education
services to students with disabilities. Several of these initiatives are
discussed in Enclosure B. In addition, OSEP would like to acknowledge
IDE's leadership, as part of Indiana's overall education reform
activities, in promoting collaborative planning and program development
between education and other services providers within the State. One
activity that exemplifies this collaborative approach is a project
entitled [ATTAIN: working to Create System Change]{.underline}, which
established regional assistive technology assessment teams, to assist
LEAs to access difficult to obtain services and personnel for students
with disabilities and their families. Services such as assistive
technology devices, funded through Vocational Rehabilitation Services,
and alternative communication devices and services, funded through
Medicaid, are available as a result of the collaborative efforts of this
project.

OSEP's monitoring places a strong emphasis on those requirements most
closely associated with positive results for students with disabilities.
Our monitoring revealed that IDE has failed to ensure the correction of
deficiencies identified through its monitoring system, the effective
provision of related services, the provision of services in the least
restrictive environment, and the provision of services to eligible
persons with disabilities in adult correctional facilities. In addition,
problems were noted in regard to timeliness of preplacement and
triennial evaluations and extended school year services. Further, OSEP
noted continued problems with the manner in which individualized
education programs (IEP) are developed, including the content required
in an IEP to address the student's need for transition services, and the
content of notices used to inform the participants of IEP meetings that
the purpose of the meeting is to determine needed transition services.

The preliminary findings of the monitoring team were discussed with Mr.
Robert Marts, Mr. Paul Ash, Dr. Marcella Taylor, and Dr. Robert Dalton,
and staff members of the Special Education Section at an exit conference
held at the conclusion of OSEP's on-site visit. At that time IDE was
invited to provide any additional information it wanted OSEP to consider
during the development of OSEP's monitoring report. No additional
information was submitted; therefore, the findings presented An
Enclosure C are final.

In the event IDE, after consideration of the data in this letter and its
enclosures, concludes that evidence of noncompliance is significantly
inaccurate and that one or more findings is incorrect, IDE may request
reconsideration of the finding. In such a case, IDE must submit reasons
for its reconsideration request and any supporting documentation within
15 days of receiving this letter. OSEP will review the request and,
where appropriate, will issue a letter of response informing IDE that
the finding has been revised or withdrawn. Requests for reconsideration
of a finding will not delay Corrective Action Plan development and
implementation timelines for findings not part of the reconsideration
request.

I thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided during our
review. Throughout the course of the monitoring process, Mr. Marts, Mr.
Ash, and staff members of the Division of Special Education were
responsive to OSEP's requests for information, and provided access to
necessary documentation that enabled OSEP staff to acquire an
understanding of Indiana's various systems to implement Part B.

Members of OSEP's staff are available to provide technical assistance
during any phase of the development and implementation of IDE's
corrective actions. Please let me know if we can be of assistance.

Before the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), one million children with disabilities were excluded from school
altogether, and another 3.5 million did not receive appropriate programs
within the public schools. Because of the IDEA and the joint actions of
schools, school districts, State educational agencies and the
Department, more than 5.4 million children with disabilities are in
school. Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of
improving education programs for children and youth with disabilities in
Indiana.

> ![](media/image1.png){width="2.0416666666666665in"
> height="0.3645833333333333in"}Sincerely,
>
> Thomas Hehir
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosures

cc: Mr. Robert Marra

**ENCLOSURE A**

**[OSEP's Monitoring Methodology]{.underline}**

**[Pre-site Preparation]{.underline}:** OSEP staff began its review of
documents related to IDE's special education program in June 1995. The
review included, but was not limited to, IDE's State Plan, State
regulations, interagency agreements and other materials that must comply
with the requirements of Part B, such as the complaint management, due
process hearings, and State monitoring systems. OSEP also reviewed IDE's
placement data based on the December 1, 1993 child Count.

**[Involvement of Parents and Advocates]{.underline}:** During the week
of June 5, 1995, OSEP held three public meetings in Seymour, South Bend,
and Indianapolis. The purpose of these public meetings was to solicit
comments from parents, advocacy groups, teachers, administrators and
other interested citizens regarding their perceptions of IDE's
compliance with Part B. The information obtained from the public
meetings, as well as from interviews with State officials and a review
of State documents assisted OSEP in: (1) identifying the issues faced by
consumers and others interested in special education in Indiana; (2)
selecting monitoring issues (e.g., the provision of related services) to
be emphasized while on -site; and (3) selecting the sites to be
monitored.

During the on-site visit, OSEP conducted one parent focus group meeting
in the Evansville-Vanderburgh-Posey Education Cooperative in order to
hear parents' impressions of special education services provided to
their children. This meeting provided OSEP staff with parent views of
the methods used by the agency in providing a free appropriate public
education to their children, as well as the challenges faced by the
district in this endeavor.

**[On-site Data Collection and Findings]{.underline}:** The OSEP team
included Carolyn Smith, the OSEP Team Leader, who spent the week in the
capitol interviewing State education agency staff and reviewing relevant
documents. Delores Barber, Nell Eano, and Larry Wexler visited three
elementary schools, one school for kindergarten through the eighth
grade, four intermediate schools, three high schools, and one special
school in seven public agencies. Where appropriate, OSEP has included in
this letter data collected from those agencies to support or clarify the
OSEP findings regarding the sufficiency and effectiveness of IDE's
systems for ensuring compliance with the requirements of Part B. The
agency in which the supporting or clarifying data were collected is
indicated by a designation such as \"Agency A.\" The agencies that OSEP
visited and the designation used to identify those agencies in Enclosure
C of this letter are set forth below:

> Agency A: Posey County Special Services Cooperative
>
> Agency B: Evansville-Vanderburgh Community Schools
>
> Agency C: Green-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative
>
> Agency D: Indianapolis Public Schools
>
> Agency E: Porter County Special Education Interlocal
>
> Agency F: South Bend Community School Cooperation
>
> Agency G: Northeast Indiana Special Education Cooperative

**[CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURES]{.underline}**

In the interest of developing a mutually agreeable corrective action
plan specifically designed to address these findings, OSEP proposes that
IDE representatives discuss with OSEP staff, either in a meeting or
telephone conference, the areas of noncompliance identified, the most
effective methods for bringing about compliance and improving programs
for children with disabilities in the State, and specific corrective
actions. We also will invite a representative from Indiana's Special
Education Advisory Council to participate in that discussion. IDE's
corrective action plan must be developed within 45 days of receipt of
this letter. Should we fall to reach agreement within this 45 day
period, OSEP will be obliged to develop the corrective action plan.

In order to begin immediate correction of deficient practices IDE must
undertake the following general corrective actions:

1.  IDE must issue a memorandum to all agencies advising them of OSEP's
    findings of deficiency. The memorandum must direct agencies to
    review their respective practices in regard to each of the
    deficiencies identified by OSEP in order to determine if they have
    proceeded in a manner similar to the agencies for which OSEP found
    deficiencies. Should these agencies determine that their current
    practice is inconsistent with the requirements identified in IDE's
    memorandum, they must discontinue the current practice and implement
    procedures that are consistent with Part B. This memorandum must be
    submitted to OSEP within 30 days of the issuance of this letter,
    within 15 days of OSEP's approval of the memorandum, it must be
    issued to all agencies throughout the State providing special
    education or related services to students with disabilities.

2.  IDE must issue a memorandum to those agencies in which OSEP found
    deficient practices, as identified in Enclosure C o f this letter,
    requiring those agencies to immediately discontinue the deficient
    practice(s) and submit documentation to IDE that the changes
    necessary to comply with Part B requirements have been implemented.
    This memorandum must be submitted to OSEP within 30 days of the
    issuance of this letter. Within 15 days of OSEP's approval of the
    memorandum, it must be issued to those public agencies in which OSEP
    found deficient practices. IDE must send to OSEP verification that
    all corrective actions have been completed by these public agencies.

**ENCLOSURE B**

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **COMMENDABLE INITIATIVES**                                           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| The following are commendable IDE initiatives that were identified by |
| OSEP during the on-site review.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| 1.  **Bringing Hoosier Children Home.** This is a State initiative to |
|     serve students with severe needs. These students were once        |
|     routinely sent to out-of-state placements but are now being       |
|     served in programs within Indiana, and where possible, in their   |
|     home communities. Through a process know as "wrap-around          |
|     services," special education, specific related services, and      |
|     familial and social services are collaboratively planned and      |
|     provided at no cost to parents In a typical wrap-around effort,   |
|     the school may provide the special education and related          |
|     services, the State's mental health agency might provide for      |
|     residential and respite services, and medical services might be   |
|     provided through the auspices of a state-approved Medicaid        |
|     provider. As a result of this collaborative effort, nearly 80% of |
|     the students that, three years ago, had been served in            |
|     out-of-state placements, are now being served in their local      |
|     communities.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| 2.  **STEP AHEAD:** Indiana Collaboration Project. This project       |
|     provides an effective way of channeling state, local and          |
|     community resources to obtain appropriate programs and services   |
|     to children with disabilities and their families. Eight state     |
|     agencies, including the State Budget Agency, Department of        |
|     Corrections, Family and Social Services Administration, and       |
|     Department of Health, in conjunction with the Department of       |
|     Education, have developed a consolidated state plan to assess and |
|     prioritize the needs and services to be provided to children with |
|     disabilities and their families. Based upon this assessment,      |
|     agency resources are mobilized to inform families of services     |
|     they might be eligible for and to collaboratively manage the      |
|     delivery of those services.                                       |
|                                                                       |
| 3.  **Special Education Communication Network (SECN).** This is an    |
|     electronic network that incorporates electronic mail, access to   |
|     INTERNET information and communication networks, access to        |
|     databases and word processing, and electronic document retrieval. |
|     All State special education staff, local directors of special     |
|     education, universities, and significant organizations in the     |
|     special education community are connected to this system. This    |
|     system has provided for immediate communication with parents and  |
|     professionals to resolve issues and has assured a well-informed   |
|     interactive special education community.                          |
|                                                                       |
| 4.  **Interactive and Video Personnel Development.** Though this      |
|     project, IDE continues to provide training to special educators,  |
|     administrators, university staff, students, and parents utilizing |
|     interactive video and broadcast. Over 200 video tape copies of    |
|     broadcasts or videos have been disseminated on topics such as due |
|     process, inclusion, case conference committee procedures, and     |
|     writing effective IEPs.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| 5.  **SEAS CABLE:** Supporting Special Education Administrators in    |
|     Seeking Solution, as proven to be an effective way of clarifying  |
|     Federal and State policy issues, announcing upcoming events, and  |
|     for sharing information about colleagues. These activities have   |
|     helped to create a positive collegial relationship between IDE,   |
|     LEA staff, and parents for improving services to children with    |
|     disabilities.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| 6.  **Mediation Project has helped** to resolve parent-school         |
|     differences identified in case conferences. The mediators are     |
|     trained twice a year, and are available free of charge. Of 67     |
|     mediation conferences conducted, 42 (62%) of those conferences    |
|     resulted in a resolution that did not necessitate a due process   |
|     hearing.                                                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**ENCLOSURE C**

**[FINDINGS AND EXPECTED RESULTS/ACTION REQUIRED]{.underline}**

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | ###### OSEP FINDING                      | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| 1\.       | OSEP found the corrective actions        | IDE will     |
| MO        | required by IDE did no always result in  | demonstrate  |
| NITORING: | the correction of identified             | that its     |
| C         | deficiencies in the public agencies.     | procedures   |
| ORRECTION |                                          | have ensured |
| OF        | Background. IDE utilizes a five-year     | that         |
| I         | monitoring cycle. Prior to its on-site   | deficiencies |
| DENTIFIED | investigation, IDE monitoring staff      | identified   |
| DEF       | reviews the selected district's          | through its  |
| ICIENCIES | comprehensive plan and reviews a random  | monitoring   |
| 20 U.S.C. | sample of IEPs by each disability,       | are          |
| §1232d(   | placement option, and age. While         | corrected by |
| b)(3)(E). | on-site, IDE monitors interview          | public       |
| See also  | administrators, teachers, related        | agencies.    |
| 34 CFR    | services personnel, and parents on       |              |
| §80.40    | student specific issues identified as a  |              |
|           | result of student record reviews. A      |              |
| \[IDE is  | draft report is formulated within 15     |              |
| re        | days of the on-site visit. The district  |              |
| sponsible | is then given 15 days to respond to the  |              |
| for the   | content of the report. IDE then approves |              |
| adoption  | or rejects the district's response, and  |              |
| and use   | allows the district 15 days to develop a |              |
| of proper | corrective action plan. A meeting with   |              |
| methods   | the special education director of the    |              |
| to        | district is held within 15 days of IDE's |              |
| monitor   | approval of the corrective action plan,  |              |
| public    | at which time a final report is issued.  |              |
| agencies  | IDE's procedure then requires that staff |              |
| re        | monitor the implementation of the        |              |
| sponsible | corrective action plan.                  |              |
| for       |                                          |              |
| carrying  | Finding. OSEP reviewed the monitoring    |              |
| out       | documents maintained by IDE and          |              |
| ed        | interviewed IDE's monitoring staff. OSEP |              |
| ucational | noted in monitoring documents maintained |              |
| programs  | by IDE that it had not ensured that      |              |
| for       | subsequent to districts being monitored, |              |
| students  | the necessary actions to correct         |              |
| with      | identified deficiencies were implemented |              |
| disa      | by public agencies, nor had IDE ensured  |              |
| bilities, | that noncompliant practices were         |              |
| and for   | discontinued. As discussed further in    |              |
| adoption  | this Report, OSEP found similar          |              |
| and use   | deficiencies in public agencies that IDE |              |
| of        | had monitored, identified deficiencies,  |              |
| effective | and subsequently verified that           |              |
| methods   | corrective actions had occurred. In      |              |
| for the   | addition, some deficiencies in agencies  |              |
| c         | monitored by OSEP during its 1992        |              |
| orrection | monitoring visit reappear in this        |              |
| of        | Report. IDE had previously provided      |              |
| def       | written assurances and documentation     |              |
| iciencies | that deficiencies identified by OSEP in  |              |
| i         | these agencies had been corrected.       |              |
| dentified |                                          |              |
| through   |                                          |              |
| moni      |                                          |              |
| toring.\] |                                          |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | **OSEP FINDING**                         | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| II\. FREE | **[Related Services]{.underline}**       | IDE must     |
| AP        |                                          | demonstrate  |
| PROPRIATE | IDE has not fully ensured that public    | that its     |
| PUBLIC    | agencies provide special education and   | procedures   |
| E         | related services based on the student's  | have ensured |
| DUCATION: | unique needs as specified by an IEP.     | that         |
| RELATED   | Administrators, teachers, and related    | students     |
| SERVICES  | service providers from agencies B, C,    | with         |
| §         | and D stated that mental health services | disabilities |
| §300.300, | (e.g., psychological counseling) is not  | will be      |
| 309.8(d), | provided based on student need. In       | provided     |
| and       | addition, in agency C, physical therapy  | related      |
| 300.16    | and occupational therapy are not         | services,    |
|           | provided based on student need.          | such as      |
| \[A free  |                                          | p            |
| ap        | Agency personnel in agencies B, C, and D | sychological |
| propriate | reported that as a result of personnel   | counseling,  |
| public    | shortages, limits were placed on the     | physical     |
| education | amount of psychological counseling       | therapy,     |
| must be   | available for provision to students,     | occupational |
| made      | regardless of individual student need.   | therapy and  |
| available | Districts addressed the need for         | speech       |
| to all    | counseling through two different         | therapy      |
| children  | approaches. In one approach,             | commensurate |
| with      | psychological counseling was provided    | with their   |
| disa      | through contracted services that placed  | unique needs |
| bilities. | a ceiling on the amount of service that  | as specified |
| IDE must  | could be provided to individual          | by an IEP.   |
| ensure    | students. As a result of this limited    |              |
| that each | service availability the IEP teams were  |              |
| student   | prevented from making individual         |              |
| with a    | determinations as to the amount of       |              |
| d         | psychological counseling students        |              |
| isability | required. The second method for          |              |
| receives  | providing psychological counseling was   |              |
| the kind  | to refer parents to community mental     |              |
| and       | health agencies. The administrators and  |              |
| amount of | teachers reported that when parents and  |              |
| related   | students are referred to the community   |              |
| services  | mental health agency the student's IEP   |              |
| that are  | does not reflect the need for these      |              |
| required  | services and is not revised once the     |              |
| to assist | services are obtained. In addition,      |              |
| the       | these services were frequently provided  |              |
| student   | only if the parents were covered by      |              |
| to        | public or private health insurance or if |              |
| benefit   | the parents were themselves willing to   |              |
| from      | fund the service. Once the parents were  |              |
| special   | referred to the community mental health  |              |
| edu       | agency the local education agency did    |              |
| cation.\] | not ensure that psychological counseling |              |
|           | services that students required in order |              |
|           | to benefit from special education were   |              |
|           | provided at no cost to the parent. IDE   |              |
|           | had identified deficiencies regarding    |              |
|           | these requirements in agency C when it   |              |
|           | last monitored that public agency.       |              |
|           |                                          |              |
|           | A physical therapist in agency C         |              |
|           | reported that physical therapy services  |              |
|           | are provided to the student based upon   |              |
|           | the availability of the therapist, and   |              |
|           | therefore the services are not provided  |              |
|           | as indicated by the student's IEP. The   |              |
|           | therapist and an agency administrator,   |              |
|           | who confirmed that there is a shortage   |              |
|           | of physical therapists and counselors at |              |
|           | the school, also stated that students    |              |
|           | referred for occupational therapy        |              |
|           | services after February did not receive  |              |
|           | services until the next school year      |              |
|           | regardless of their individual needs.    |              |
|           | IDE had identified deficiencies          |              |
|           | regarding this requirement in agency C   |              |
|           | when it last monitored that public       |              |
|           | agency.                                  |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | ###### OSEP FINDING                      | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| II\. FREE | **[Extended School Year                  | IDE must     |
| AP        | Services]{.underline}**                  | demonstrate  |
| PROPRIATE |                                          | that its     |
| PUBLIC    | IDE has not fully ensured that public    | procedures   |
| E         | agencies consider the need for extended  | have ensured |
| DUCATION: | school year services for all children    | that         |
| RELATED   | with disabilities and provide those      | students     |
| SERVICES  | services, if necessary, to ensure        | with         |
| §         | children receive a free appropriate      | disabilities |
| §300.300. | public education. OSEP monitors found    | receive an   |
|           | that in agencies C and D the case        | extended     |
| \[IDE is  | conference committee did not             | school year, |
| re        | consistently consider or document the    | if           |
| sponsible | need for extended school year services.  | necessary,   |
| for       |                                          | to ensure    |
| ensuring  | Administrators, teachers, and related    | that the     |
| that the  | service providers who serve on the case  | student      |
| need for  | conference committee teams in agencies C | receives     |
| extended  | and D reported that extended school year | free         |
| school    | services are not considered or provided. | appropriate  |
| year      | None of the student records from the     | public       |
| services  | previous school year that OSEP reviewed  | education.   |
| is        | in Agency D indicated that ESY services  |              |
| c         | were considered as a program option by   |              |
| onsidered | the case conference committees. The      |              |
| for all   | agency D administrator responsible for   |              |
| children  | special education confirmed that the     |              |
| with      | need for extended school year services   |              |
| dis       | had never been considered during IEP     |              |
| abilities | meetings, but indicated that extended    |              |
| and those | school year was added as a program       |              |
| services  | option on the IEP format this school     |              |
| are       | year. Agency C personnel reported that   |              |
| provided, | extended school year services were       |              |
| if        | neither considered nor provided.         |              |
| n         |                                          |              |
| ecessary, |                                          |              |
| to ensure |                                          |              |
| the child |                                          |              |
| receives  |                                          |              |
| a free    |                                          |              |
| ap        |                                          |              |
| propriate |                                          |              |
| public    |                                          |              |
| edu       |                                          |              |
| cation.\] |                                          |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | **OSEP FINDING**                         | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| II\. FREE | **[Preplacement                          | IDE must     |
| AP        | Evaluation]{.underline}**                | demonstrate  |
| PROPRIATE |                                          | that its     |
| PUBLIC    | IDE has not fully ensured that all       | procedures   |
| E         | children with disabilities are provided  | have ensured |
| DUCATION: | a free appropriate public education that | that         |
| PRE       | meets the standards of the SEA. IDE      | students     |
| PLACEMENT | standards require public agencies to     | suspected of |
| E         | conduct a full and individual evaluation | having       |
| VALUATION | within 40 instructional days of the      | disabilities |
| §         | parents' consent to evaluate for         | will have a  |
| §300.300, | eligibility for special education        | full         |
| 300.8(b), | services.                                |              |
| and       |                                          | and          |
| 300.600(a | IDE's monitoring procedures provide for  | individual   |
| )(2)(ii). | (1) verification that agency policies    | evaluation   |
|           | and procedures include the State's       | completed    |
| \[IDE is  | standard requiring that initial          | within the   |
| re        | evaluations be conducted within 40       | State        |
| sponsible | instructional days from receipt of the   | standard of  |
| for       | parent's consent and (2) a student       | 40           |
| ensuring  | record review to verify compliance with  | i            |
| that all  | the 40 day standard. IDE identified      | nstructional |
| children  | deficiencies regarding this requirement  | days of the  |
| with      | in agencies C, E, F, and G when it last  | parents'     |
| dis       | monitored those public agencies.         | consent to   |
| abilities |                                          | evaluate for |
| are       | OSEP reviewed documentation on initial   | eligibility  |
| provided  | evaluations and interviewed staff in     | for special  |
| a free    | agencies visited. These agencies         | education    |
| ap        | provided documentation on initial        | services and |
| propriate | evaluations completed during the 1993-94 | the case     |
| public    | and 1994-95 school years. That           | conference   |
| education | documentation showed delays in           | committee.   |
| that      | evaluation conducted by public agencies  |              |
| meets the | that ranged from 10 instructional days   |              |
| standards | to as many as 390 instructional days     |              |
| of the    | (e.g., greater than two calendar years)  |              |
| State     | in the following agencies:               |              |
| Ed        |                                          |              |
| ucational | Agency B -- 63 of 400 evaluations were   |              |
| Agency,   | overdue;                                 |              |
| which     |                                          |              |
| require   | Agency C -- 166 of 377 evaluations were  |              |
| public    | overdue;                                 |              |
| agencies  |                                          |              |
| to        | Agency E -- 46 of 600 evaluations were   |              |
| conduct a | overdue;                                 |              |
| full and  |                                          |              |
| i         | Agency F -- 161 of 806 evaluations were  |              |
| ndividual | overdue;                                 |              |
| e         |                                          |              |
| valuation | Agency G -- 68 of 386 evaluations were   |              |
| within 40 | overdue;                                 |              |
| inst      |                                          |              |
| ructional | Administrators and agency staff reported |              |
| days from | that delays were the result of a         |              |
| receipt   | shortage of evaluation personnel.        |              |
| of the    |                                          |              |
| parents'  | The administrator responsible for        |              |
| consent   | special education in Agency D reported   |              |
| to        | that initial evaluations were overdue,   |              |
| ev        | but was unable to provide OSEP monitors  |              |
| aluate.\] | the evaluation data/documentation used   |              |
|           | to make that determination.              |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | **OSEP FINDING**                         | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| III\.     | IDE has not fully ensured that all       | IDE must     |
| P         | children with disabilities are           | demonstrate  |
| ROTECTION | reevaluated every three years. IDE       | that its     |
| IN        | identified deficiencies regarding this   | procedures   |
| E         | requirement in agencies C, E, F, and G   | have ensured |
| VALUATION | when it last monitored those public      | that an      |
| PR        | agencies.                                | evaluation   |
| OCEDURES: |                                          | of the child |
| REE       | OSEP collected documentation from        | based on     |
| VALUATION | agencies B, D, D, E, F, and G on         | procedures   |
| §300.534  | reevaluations conducted during the       | that meet    |
|           | 1994-1995 school year. In interviews,    | the          |
| \[Each    | administrators and agency personnel      | requirements |
| State     | responsible for conducting these         | of §300.532  |
| ed        | evaluations reported that the following  | is conducted |
| ucational | delays were the result of staff          | every three  |
| agency    | shortages and the subsequent decision to | years.       |
| and local | give priority to initial evaluations     |              |
| ed        | over triennial reevaluations.            |              |
| ucational |                                          |              |
| agency    | Agency B -- 180 of 579 evaluations       |              |
| shall     | overdue                                  |              |
| ensure    |                                          |              |
| that an   | Agency E -- 68 of 386 evaluations        |              |
| e         | overdue                                  |              |
| valuation |                                          |              |
| of the    | Agency G -- 340 of 380 evaluations       |              |
| child     | overdue                                  |              |
| based on  |                                          |              |
| p         | In agencies E and G, these reevaluations |              |
| rocedures | were, in some cases, more that a year    |              |
| that meet | overdue.                                 |              |
| the       |                                          |              |
| req       | The administrators responsible for       |              |
| uirements | special education in agencies C, D, and  |              |
| of        | F reported that reevaluations were       |              |
| §300.532  | overdue, but were unable to provide OSEP |              |
| is        | monitors the reevaluation                |              |
| conducted | data/documentation used to make that     |              |
| every     | determination.                           |              |
| three     |                                          |              |
| years.\]  |                                          |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | **OSEP FINDING**                         | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| IV\.      | In student records reviewed for          | IDE must     |
| LEAST     | moderately mentally disabled students in | demonstrate  |
| RE        | separate classes in agencies B and C,    | that its     |
| STRICTIVE | and a separate program serving           | procedures   |
| ENV       | severely/profoundly disabled in agency   | have ensured |
| IRONMENT: | E, OSEP found that participation in      | that in      |
| NO        | nonacademic and extracurricular          | providing or |
| NACADEMIC | activities with nondisabled children was | arranging    |
| SERVICES  | not determined on an individual basis.   | for the      |
| §300.553  |                                          | provision of |
|           | The administrator responsible for        | nonacademic  |
| \[IDE is  | special education and the students'      | and          |
| re        | teacher stated that participation in     | ext          |
| sponsible | nonacademic and extracurricular          | racurricular |
| for       | activities did not occur and was not     | activities   |
| ensuring  | considered for severely/profoundly       | and          |
| that in   | disabled students enrolled in the Agency | services,    |
| providing | E separate facility even though these    | each public  |
| or        | students could benefit from              | agency       |
| arranging | participation in nonacademic and         | ensures that |
| for the   | extracurricular activities with          | students     |
| provision | nondisabled peers. The administrator and | with a       |
| of        | the students' teacher could not provide  | disabilities |
| no        | a rationale for why participation in     | participate  |
| nacademic | nonacademic and extracurricular          | with         |
| and       | activities with nondisabled peers was    | nondisabled  |
| extrac    | not considered.                          | children in  |
| urricular |                                          | those        |
| a         | Administrators and the students'         | activities   |
| ctivities | teachers in agencies B and C reported    | and services |
| and       | that the integration of moderately       | to the       |
| services, | mentally disabled students with their    | maximum      |
| each      | nondisabled peers in nonacademic and     | extent       |
| public    | extracurricular activities was not based | appropriate  |
| agency    | on the individual needs of students, but | to the needs |
| ensures   | on activities (e.g., assemblies) being   | of the       |
| that      | available to the entire class of special | child.       |
| students  | education students as a group activity.  |              |
| with      | The administrator further asserted that  |              |
| dis       | if students are receiving their          |              |
| abilities | educational programs in their home       |              |
| pa        | school, integration should be happening. |              |
| rticipate |                                          |              |
| with      |                                          |              |
| no        |                                          |              |
| ndisabled |                                          |              |
| children  |                                          |              |
| in those  |                                          |              |
| a         |                                          |              |
| ctivities |                                          |              |
| and       |                                          |              |
| services  |                                          |              |
| to the    |                                          |              |
| maximum   |                                          |              |
| extent    |                                          |              |
| ap        |                                          |              |
| propriate |                                          |              |
| to the    |                                          |              |
| needs of  |                                          |              |
| the       |                                          |              |
| child.\]  |                                          |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| **        | ###### OSEP FINDING                      | **EXPECTED   |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**   |
|           |                                          |              |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION     |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/    |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**  |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+
| V.        | The IEP notices in the records of        | IDE must     |
| STATEMENT | students 16 years and older in agencies  | demonstrate  |
| OF NEEDED | B, C, D, and F, did not address the      | that its     |
| T         | requirements of §300.345(b)(2),          | procedures   |
| RANSITION | specifying that when the purpose of an   | have ensured |
| SERVICES  | IEP meeting is to include consideration  | that notice  |
| §300.     | of transition services for a student,    | is provided  |
| 345(b)(2) | the notice informs the parent of this    | that informs |
|           | purpose, that the agency will invite the | parents that |
| \[IDE is  | student and a representative of any      | the purpose  |
| re        | other agency that was identified as      | of the IEP   |
| sponsible | being likely to be responsible for       | meeting will |
| for       | providing or paying for transition       | include the  |
| ensuring  | services is invited to the meeting.      | discussion   |
| that, if  | Although it is the policy of some public | of needed    |
| the IEP   | agencies to provide the parents the      | transition   |
| meeting   | option of including the student in these | services,    |
| includes  | meetings, this policy does not eliminate | and that the |
| the       | the agency's obligation to invite the    | notices      |
| cons      | student and inform parents that the      | provided by  |
| ideration | student will be invited.                 | public       |
| of        |                                          | agencies     |
| t         | IDE identified deficiencies regarding    | include an   |
| ransition | this requirement in agencies B and C     | invitation   |
| services, | when it last monitored those public      | to the       |
| the       | agencies.                                | student and  |
| notice to |                                          | a            |
| parents   |                                          | re           |
| of IEP    |                                          | presentative |
| meetings  |                                          | of the       |
| must      |                                          | agency(ies)  |
| inform    |                                          | likely to be |
| the       |                                          | responsible  |
| parent    |                                          | for          |
| that: (1) |                                          | providing or |
| the       |                                          | paying for   |
| purpose   |                                          | the          |
| of the    |                                          | transition   |
| meeting   |                                          | services.    |
| includes  |                                          |              |
| cons      |                                          |              |
| ideration |                                          |              |
| of        |                                          |              |
| t         |                                          |              |
| ransition |                                          |              |
| services; |                                          |              |
| and (2)   |                                          |              |
| the       |                                          |              |
| agency    |                                          |              |
| will      |                                          |              |
| invite    |                                          |              |
| the       |                                          |              |
| student,  |                                          |              |
| and a     |                                          |              |
| repre     |                                          |              |
| sentative |                                          |              |
| of        |                                          |              |
| another   |                                          |              |
| agency    |                                          |              |
| that is   |                                          |              |
| likely to |                                          |              |
| be        |                                          |              |
| re        |                                          |              |
| sponsible |                                          |              |
| for       |                                          |              |
| providing |                                          |              |
| or paying |                                          |              |
| for       |                                          |              |
| t         |                                          |              |
| ransition |                                          |              |
| se        |                                          |              |
| rvices.\] |                                          |              |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+--------------+

+-----------+------------------------------------------+---------------+
| **        | ###### OSEP FINDING                      | **EXPECTED    |
| FEDERAL** |                                          | RESULTS/**    |
|           |                                          |               |
| **REQU    |                                          | **ACTION      |
| IREMENT** |                                          | REQUIRED/     |
|           |                                          | TIMELINES**   |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+---------------+
| V.        | OSEP found that the IEPs in students'    | IDE will      |
| STATEMENT | records reviewed in agencies B, D, E,    | demonstrate   |
| OF NEEDED | and F did not always contain statements  | procedures    |
| T         | of needed transition services or         | that ensure   |
| RANSITION | contained incomplete statements of       | that each     |
| SERVICES  | needed transition services. IDE has      | public        |
| §3        | developed, but has not disseminated,     | agency,       |
| 00.344(b) | appropriate guidance relative to the     | beginning no  |
|           | inclusion of a statement of needed       | later than    |
| \[IDE is  | transition services. Of 19 records       | age 16 (and   |
| re        | review of students who were 16 years or  | at a younger  |
| sponsible | older, OSEP found three IEPs that did    | age, if       |
| for       | not include a statement of needed        | determined    |
| ensuring  | transition services and 12 IEPs in which | appropriate), |
| that each | a statement of needed transition         | develops an   |
| public    | services did not address one or more     | IEP for each  |
| agency,   | areas specified in §300.18. In those     | student which |
| beginning | instances where one or more of the       | includes a    |
| no later  | content areas was omitted, the IEPs did  | statement of  |
| than age  | not include a statement that the         | needed        |
| 16 (and   | services were not needed and the basis   | transition    |
| at a      | upon which the determination was made.   | services; and |
| younger   |                                          | in those      |
| age, if   |                                          | instance      |
| d         |                                          | where one or  |
| etermined |                                          | more content  |
| appr      |                                          | areas are     |
| opriate), |                                          | omitted, the  |
| develops  |                                          | IEP must      |
| an IEP    |                                          | include a     |
| for each  |                                          | statement to  |
| student   |                                          | that effect   |
| which     |                                          | and the basis |
| includes  |                                          | upon which    |
| a         |                                          | the           |
| statement |                                          | determination |
| of needed |                                          | was made.     |
| t         |                                          |               |
| ransition |                                          |               |
| services  |                                          |               |
| as        |                                          |               |
| defined   |                                          |               |
| in        |                                          |               |
| §300.18   |                                          |               |
| (§300.34  |                                          |               |
| 6(b)(1)). |                                          |               |
| If the    |                                          |               |
| IEP team  |                                          |               |
| d         |                                          |               |
| etermines |                                          |               |
| that      |                                          |               |
| services  |                                          |               |
| are not   |                                          |               |
| needed in |                                          |               |
| one or    |                                          |               |
| more of   |                                          |               |
| the areas |                                          |               |
| specified |                                          |               |
| in        |                                          |               |
| §300.18   |                                          |               |
| (b)(2)(i) |                                          |               |
| through   |                                          |               |
| (b        |                                          |               |
| )(2(iii), |                                          |               |
| the IEP   |                                          |               |
| must      |                                          |               |
| include a |                                          |               |
| statement |                                          |               |
| to that   |                                          |               |
| effect    |                                          |               |
| and the   |                                          |               |
| basis     |                                          |               |
| upon      |                                          |               |
| which the |                                          |               |
| dete      |                                          |               |
| rmination |                                          |               |
| was       |                                          |               |
| made.\]   |                                          |               |
+-----------+------------------------------------------+---------------+

MARCH 26 1996

Mr. Robert Marra

Director

Division of Special Education

Indiana Department of Education

Room 229, State House

Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2798

Dear Mr. Marra:

This is in response to your February 26, 1996 letter transmitting the
Indiana Department of Education's (IDE) response to the Office of
Special Education Programs' (OSEP) 1995 on-site review of IDE's
implementation of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act. In accordance with the terms described in OSEP's February 6, 1996
Letter of Findings to Dr. Suellen Reed, you requested reconsideration of
certain information in the Letter of Findings and provided additional
data in support of this request.

We have carefully reviewed the Letter of Findings in light of your
submission This letter is notification of any amendments made to the
Letter of Findings as a result of your response. The Enclosure to this
letter is OSEP's analysis and reply to the clarifications addressed in
your February 26, 1996 letter. OSEP will distribute this letter and the
enclosure as an appendix to the Letter of Findings to individuals who
request a copy. This appendix is an official part of the Letter of
Findings and should be included with any distribution Jade by your
office.

Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of students with
disabilities in Indiana. We look forward to working with you and members
of your staff as we refine the corrective action plan.

> Sincerely,
>
> ![](media/image3.png){width="1.6965277777777779in"
> height="0.4201388888888889in"}
>
> Thomas Hehir
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosure

cc: Dr. Suellen Reed

Superintendent of Public Instruction

**ENCLOSURE**

**Analysis of IDE's Response to the**

**Office of Special Education Programs' 1995 On-site**

###### Review of the Indiana Department of Education 

**[Comments]{.underline}**. The Indiana Department of Education (IDE),
Division of Special Education stated that it believed there was
significantly inaccurate information contained on pages 8 and 9 of the
Letter of Findings where agencies A through G are identified as being
overdue in regard to timelines for initial evaluations and timelines for
reevaluations.

**[OSEP Response]{.underline}**. IDE submitted documentation from two
agencies that resulted in a change in the numbers indicated on pages 8
and 9 of the Letter of Findings. Therefore the data is amended as
follows:

Page 8 (Initial Evaluations)

Agency E - 30 of 600 evaluations overdue

Page 9 (Reevaluations)

Agency E - 44 of 567 evaluations overdue

Agency G - 12 of 380 evaluations overdue