While the State has publicly reported on the performance of each local
education agency (LEA) located in the State on the targets in the
State's performance plan as required by IDEA section
616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I), those reports do not contain the required
information. Specifically, Texas indicated that it will not report on
Indicator B-12 until 2009. It also indicated that it will not begin to
report on all indicators until 2010. Currently, TX reports only on LEA
performance on Indicators B 1 through B 6.

+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| **Monitoring  | **Status of APR Data/SPP       | **OSEP             |
| Priorities    | Revision Issues**              | Analysis/Next      |
| and           |                                | Steps**            |
| Indicators**  |                                |                    |
+===============+================================+====================+
| 1.  Percent   | The State revised the targets  | OSEP looks forward |
|     of youth  | and improvement activities for | to the State's     |
|     with IEPs | this indicator in its SPP and  | data demonstrating |
|               | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | improvement in     |
|    graduating |                                | performance in the |
|     from high | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|     school    | data for this indicator are    | February 1, 2009.  |
|     with a    | 72.7%. These data represent    |                    |
|     regular   | slippage from the FFY 2005     |                    |
|     diploma   | data of 74.8%.                 |                    |
|     compared  |                                |                    |
|     to        | The State did not meet its FFY |                    |
|     percent   | 2006 target of 75%.            |                    |
|     of all    |                                |                    |
|     youth in  |                                |                    |
|     the State |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|    graduating |                                |                    |
|     with a    |                                |                    |
|     regular   |                                |                    |
|     diploma.  |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 2.  Percent   | The State revised the targets  | OSEP looks forward |
|     of youth  | and improvement activities for | to the State's     |
|     with IEPs | this indicator in its SPP and  | data demonstrating |
|     dropping  | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | improvement in     |
|     out of    |                                | performance in the |
|     high      | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|     school    | data for this indicator are    | February 1, 2009.  |
|     compared  | 10.6%. These data represent    |                    |
|     to the    | slippage from the FFY 2005     |                    |
|     percent   | data of 6.8%.                  |                    |
|     of all    |                                |                    |
|     youth in  | The State did not meet its FFY |                    |
|     the State | 2006 target of 2.9%.           |                    |
|     dropping  |                                |                    |
|     out of    |                                |                    |
|     high      |                                |                    |
|     school.   |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 3\.           | The State revised the          | OSEP looks forward |
| Participation | improvement activities for     | to the State's     |
| and           | this indicator and OSEP        | data demonstrating |
| performance   | accepts those revisions.       | improvement in     |
| of children   |                                | performance in the |
| with          | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
| disabilities  | data for this indicator are    | February 1, 2009.  |
| on statewide  | 93.6%. These data represent    |                    |
| assessments:  | progress from the FFY 2005     |                    |
|               | data of 87.6%.                 |                    |
| A. Percent of |                                |                    |
| districts     | The State did not meet its FFY |                    |
| that have a   | 2006 target of 100%.           |                    |
| disability    |                                |                    |
| subgroup that |                                |                    |
| meets the     |                                |                    |
| State's       |                                |                    |
| minimum "n"   |                                |                    |
| size meeting  |                                |                    |
| the State's   |                                |                    |
| AYP           |                                |                    |
| objectives    |                                |                    |
| for progress  |                                |                    |
| for           |                                |                    |
| disability    |                                |                    |
| subgroup.     |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 3\.           | The State revised the          | OSEP appreciates   |
| Participation | improvement activities for     | the State's        |
| and           | this indicator and OSEP        | efforts to improve |
| performance   | accepts those revisions.       | performance.       |
| of children   |                                |                    |
| with          | The State's FFY 2006 reported  |                    |
| disabilities  | data for this indicator are    |                    |
| on statewide  | 98.1% for reading and 98.7 %   |                    |
| assessments:  | for math.                      |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| B.            | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
| Participation | target of 95% for reading and  |                    |
| rate for      | met its FFY 2006 target of 95% |                    |
| children with | for math.                      |                    |
| IEPs in a     |                                |                    |
| regular       |                                |                    |
| assessment    |                                |                    |
| with no       |                                |                    |
| ac            |                                |                    |
| commodations; |                                |                    |
| regular       |                                |                    |
| assessment    |                                |                    |
| with          |                                |                    |
| ac            |                                |                    |
| commodations; |                                |                    |
| alternate     |                                |                    |
| assessment    |                                |                    |
| against grade |                                |                    |
| level         |                                |                    |
| standards;    |                                |                    |
| alternate     |                                |                    |
| assessment    |                                |                    |
| against       |                                |                    |
| alternate     |                                |                    |
| achievement   |                                |                    |
| standards.    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 3.            | The State revised the          | OSEP appreciates   |
| Participation | improvement activities for     | the State's        |
|     and       | this indicator and OSEP        | efforts to improve |
|               | accepts those revisions.       | performance.       |
|   performance |                                |                    |
|     of        | The State's FFY 2006 reported  |                    |
|     children  | data for this indicator are    |                    |
|     with      | 70.8% for reading and 68.99%   |                    |
|               | for math.                      |                    |
|  disabilities |                                |                    |
|     on        | These data represent progress  |                    |
|     statewide | from the FFY 2005 data of 66%  |                    |
|               | for reading and progress from  |                    |
|  assessments: | the FFY 2005 data of 65.03%    |                    |
|               | for math.                      |                    |
| C.            |                                |                    |
| Proficiency   | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
| rate for      | target of 60% for reading and  |                    |
| children with | met its FFY 2006 target of 50% |                    |
| IEPs against  | for math.                      |                    |
| grade level   |                                |                    |
| standards and |                                |                    |
| alternate     |                                |                    |
| achievement   |                                |                    |
| standards.    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 4\. Rates of  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | OSEP's June 15,    |
| suspension    | data for this indicator are    | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| and           | 4.7%. These data represent     | SPP/APR response   |
| expulsion:    | slippage from the FFY 2005     | table required the |
|               | data of 4.6%.                  | State to include   |
| A. Percent of |                                | in the February 1, |
| districts     | The State did not meet its FFY | 2008 APR a         |
| identified by | 2006 target of 0%.             | description of the |
| the State as  |                                | review, and if     |
| having a      | The State described the        | appropriate        |
| significant   | process that the State will    | revision, of       |
| discrepancy   | use to review, and if          | policies,          |
| in the rates  | appropriate, revise (or        | procedures, and    |
| of            | require the affected LEAs to   | practices relating |
| suspensions   | revise), its policies,         | to the development |
| and           | procedures, and practices      | and implementation |
| expulsions of | relating to the development    | of IEPs, the use   |
| children with | and implementation of IEPs,    | of positive        |
| disabilities  | the use of positive behavioral | behavioral         |
| for greater   | interventions and supports,    | interventions and  |
| than 10 days  | and procedural safeguards to   | supports, and      |
| in a school   | ensure compliance with the     | procedural         |
| year; and     | IDEA, as required by 34 CFR    | safeguards to      |
|               | §300.170(b) for the LEAs       | ensure compliance  |
| \[Results     | identified with significant    | with the IDEA for: |
| Indicator\]   | discrepancies for FFY 2006.    | (1) the LEAs       |
|               | However, as of the time of the | identified as      |
|               | APR submission, this process   | having significant |
|               | had not been completed for FFY | discrepancies in   |
|               | 2005 or FFY 2006, as required  | the FFY 2005 APR;  |
|               | in the FFY 2005 response       | and (2) the LEAs   |
|               | table.                         | identified as      |
|               |                                | having significant |
|               |                                | discrepancies in   |
|               |                                | the FFY 2006 APR.  |
|               |                                | The State did not  |
|               |                                | submit evidence    |
|               |                                | that this review   |
|               |                                | was completed by   |
|               |                                | the time of the    |
|               |                                | APR submission.    |
|               |                                | This demonstrates  |
|               |                                | noncompliance with |
|               |                                | 34 CFR             |
|               |                                | §300.170(b).       |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | In reporting on    |
|               |                                | this indicator in  |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009, the State    |
|               |                                | must describe the  |
|               |                                | results of the     |
|               |                                | State's            |
|               |                                | examination of     |
|               |                                | data from FFY 2007 |
|               |                                | (2007-2008). In    |
|               |                                | addition, the      |
|               |                                | State must         |
|               |                                | describe the       |
|               |                                | review, and, if    |
|               |                                | appropriate,       |
|               |                                | revision, of       |
|               |                                | policies,          |
|               |                                | procedures and     |
|               |                                | practices relating |
|               |                                | to the development |
|               |                                | and implementation |
|               |                                | of IEPs, the use   |
|               |                                | of positive        |
|               |                                | behavioral         |
|               |                                | interventions and  |
|               |                                | supports, and      |
|               |                                | procedural         |
|               |                                | safeguards to      |
|               |                                | ensure compliance  |
|               |                                | with the IDEA for  |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified with    |
|               |                                | significant        |
|               |                                | discrepancies in   |
|               |                                | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
|               |                                | 2006, as required  |
|               |                                | by 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §300.170(b).       |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | OSEP looks forward |
|               |                                | to the State's     |
|               |                                | data demonstrating |
|               |                                | improvement in     |
|               |                                | performance in the |
|               |                                | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|               |                                | February 1, 2009.  |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 4\. Rates of  | Reporting on Indicator 4B was  |                    |
| suspension    | not required for the FFY 2006  |                    |
| and           | APR**.**                       |                    |
| expulsion:    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| 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.    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 5\. Percent   | The State's reported data for  | OSEP appreciates   |
| of children   | this indicator are:            | the State's        |
| with IEPs     |                                | efforts to improve |
| aged 6        |   ------------                 | performance and    |
| through 21:   | --- -------- -------- -------- | looks forward to   |
|               |                                | the State's data   |
| A. Removed    |     FFY 2005 FFY 2006 FFY 2006 | demonstrating      |
| from regular  |                                | improvement in     |
| class less    |       Data     Data     Target | performance for    |
| than 21% of   |                                | Indicator 5B in    |
| the day;      |   A. Removed                   | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |  from 55.99%   58.9%     55.6% | due February 1,    |
| B. Removed    |   regu                         | 2009.              |
| from regular  | lar class                      |                    |
| class greater |   less                         |                    |
| than 60% of   |  than 21%                      |                    |
| the day; or   |   of t                         |                    |
|               | he day.                        |                    |
| C. Served in  |                                |                    |
| public or     |   B. Removed                   |                    |
| private       |  from 12.61%   12.34%    11.9% |                    |
| separate      |   regu                         |                    |
| schools,      | lar class                      |                    |
| residential   |   grea                         |                    |
| placements,   | ter than                       |                    |
| or homebound  |   60%                          |                    |
| or hospital   | of the day.                    |                    |
| placements.   |                                |                    |
|               |   C. Served                    |                    |
| \[Results     |  in    1.27%    1.22%    1.27% |                    |
| Indicator\]   |   publ                         |                    |
|               | ic or                          |                    |
|               |   priv                         |                    |
|               | ate                            |                    |
|               |   sepa                         |                    |
|               | rate                           |                    |
|               |   scho                         |                    |
|               | ols,                           |                    |
|               |   resi                         |                    |
|               | dential                        |                    |
|               |   plac                         |                    |
|               | ements, or                     |                    |
|               |   home                         |                    |
|               | bound or                       |                    |
|               |   hosp                         |                    |
|               | ital                           |                    |
|               |   plac                         |                    |
|               | ements.                        |                    |
|               |   ------------                 |                    |
|               | --- -------- -------- -------- |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | These data represent progress  |                    |
|               | from the FFY 2005 data.        |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
|               | target for A and C and did not |                    |
|               | meet its target for B.         |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 6\. Percent   | Reporting on Indicator 6 was   |                    |
| of preschool  | not required for the FFY 2006  |                    |
| children with | APR**.**                       |                    |
| IEPs who      |                                |                    |
| received      |                                |                    |
| special       |                                |                    |
| education and |                                |                    |
| related       |                                |                    |
| services in   |                                |                    |
| settings with |                                |                    |
| typically     |                                |                    |
| developing    |                                |                    |
| peers (i.e.,  |                                |                    |
| early         |                                |                    |
| childhood     |                                |                    |
| settings,     |                                |                    |
| home, and     |                                |                    |
| part-time     |                                |                    |
| early         |                                |                    |
| childh        |                                |                    |
| ood/part-time |                                |                    |
| early         |                                |                    |
| childhood     |                                |                    |
| special       |                                |                    |
| education     |                                |                    |
| settings).    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 7\. Percent   | The State provided improvement | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of preschool  | activities for this indicator  | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| children with | covering the remaining years   | SPP/APR response   |
| IEPs who      | of the SPP.                    | table required the |
| demonstrate   |                                | State to provide   |
| improved:     | The State\'s data for this     | progress data and  |
|               | indicator are not valid and    | improvement        |
| A.  Positive  | reliable.  The measurement for | activities with    |
|     soc       | this indicator required that   | the FFY 2006 APR,  |
| ial-emotional | the State provide entry data   | due February 1,    |
|     skills    | for the FFY 2005 APR and       | 2008.              |
|               | progress data for the FFY 2006 |                    |
|    (including | APR.  In the FFY 2006 APR, the | The State did not  |
|     social    | State only provided entry data | report the         |
|     re        | for FFY 2006.                  | required progress  |
| lationships); |                                | data. The State    |
|               |                                | did provide entry  |
| B.            |                                | level data for the |
|   Acquisition |                                | 14 largest school  |
|     and use   |                                | districts and a    |
|     of        |                                | plan to provide    |
|     knowledge |                                | progress data for  |
|     and       |                                | the FFY 2007 SPP   |
|     skills    |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009.              |
|    (including |                                |                    |
|     early     |                                | The State must     |
|     language/ |                                | provide progress   |
|               |                                | data with the FFY  |
| communication |                                | 2007 APR, due      |
|     and early |                                | February 1, 2009;  |
|               |                                | and baseline data  |
|    literacy); |                                | and targets with   |
|     and       |                                | the FFY 2008 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
| C.  Use of    |                                | 2010.              |
|               |                                |                    |
|   appropriate |                                |                    |
|     behaviors |                                |                    |
|     to meet   |                                |                    |
|     their     |                                |                    |
|     needs.    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator;    |                                |                    |
| New\]         |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 8\. Percent   | The State revised the          | OSEP looks forward |
| of parents    | baseline, targets, and         | to the State's     |
| with a child  | improvement activities for     | data demonstrating |
| receiving     | this indicator in its SPP and  | improvement in     |
| special       | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | performance in the |
| education     |                                | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
| services who  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | February 1, 2009.  |
| report that   | data for this indicator are    |                    |
| schools       | 69%.                           |                    |
| facilitated   |                                |                    |
| parent        | OSEP was unable to determine   |                    |
| involvement   | whether there was progress or  |                    |
| as a means of | slippage, because the State    |                    |
| improving     | considered baseline data from  |                    |
| services and  | FFY 2005 not to be valid and   |                    |
| results for   | reliable. The State reported   |                    |
| children with | it will use FFY 2006 data as   |                    |
| disabilities. | the baseline for this          |                    |
|               | indicator.                     |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 9\. Percent   | The State revised the          | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of districts  | improvement activities for     | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| with          | this indicator and OSEP        | SPP/APR response   |
| dis           | accepts those revisions.       | table required the |
| proportionate |                                | State to include   |
| r             | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | in the February 1, |
| epresentation | data for this indicator are    | 2008 APR, data on  |
| of racial and | .16%.                          | the percent of     |
| ethnic groups |                                | districts          |
| in special    | The State reported the actual  | identified in FFY  |
| education and | number of districts determined | 2005 with          |
| related       | in FFY 2006 to have            | disproportionate   |
| services that | disproportionate               | representation of  |
| is the result | representation of racial or    | racial and ethnic  |
| of            | ethnic groups in special       | groups in special  |
| inappropriate | education and related services | education and      |
| id            | that was the result of         | related services   |
| entification. | inappropriate identification.  | that is the result |
|               |                                | of inappropriate   |
| \[Compliance  | The State did not provide      | identification,    |
| Indicator\]   | valid and reliable data        | and describe how   |
|               | because the State did not      | the State made     |
|               | provide separate actual target | that               |
|               | data for Indicators 9 and 10,  | determination.     |
|               | and OSEP cannot distinguish    |                    |
|               | between the two. The State did | The State did not  |
|               | distinguish between those      | submit valid and   |
|               | districts with                 | reliable data and  |
|               | disproportionate               | the State must     |
|               | representation under           | provide the        |
|               | Indicators 9 and 10, but did   | required data for  |
|               | not make the distinction in    | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
|               | reporting that two districts   | 2006, in addition  |
|               | reported that their            | to the data for    |
|               | disproportionate               | FFY 2007, in the   |
|               | representation was the result  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|               | of inappropriate               | February 1, 2009,  |
|               | identification. In addition,   | as required by 34  |
|               | the State did not examine data | CFR                |
|               | for FFY 2006 for the           | §300.600(d)(3).    |
|               | underrepresentation of racial  |                    |
|               | and ethnic groups in special   | The State reported |
|               | education and related          | that the           |
|               | services. As a result of the   | noncompliance      |
|               | lack of valid and reliable     | identified in FFY  |
|               | data, OSEP could not determine | 2006 was not       |
|               | whether there was progress or  | corrected. In      |
|               | slippage or whether the State  | reporting on       |
|               | met its target. Another reason | correction of this |
|               | that OSEP could not determine  | noncompliance in   |
|               | whether there was progress or  | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | slippage is that the State     | due February 1,    |
|               | still has not determined       | 2009, the State    |
|               | whether the disproportionate   | must distinguish   |
|               | representation it identified   | which              |
|               | in the FFY 2005 SPP was the    | noncompliance was  |
|               | result of inappropriate        | in LEAs identified |
|               | identification.                | under Indicator 9. |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | OSEP could not determine if    | The State must     |
|               | LEAs identified in FFY 2005 as | review its         |
|               | having disproportionate        | improvement        |
|               | representation of racial or    | activities and     |
|               | ethnic groups in special       | revise, if         |
|               | education and related services | appropriate, to    |
|               | that was the result of         | ensure they will   |
|               | inappropriate identification   | enable the State   |
|               | are in compliance with the     | to demonstrate in  |
|               | requirements of 34 CFR         | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | §§300.111, 300.201 and 300.301 | due February 1,    |
|               | through 300.311 because the    | 2009, that the     |
|               | State did not complete the     | State has in       |
|               | identification process for FFY | effect policies    |
|               | 2005.                          | and procedures as  |
|               |                                | required by 34 CFR |
|               |                                | §300.173 and that  |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified in FFY  |
|               |                                | 2005 and FFY 2006  |
|               |                                | as having          |
|               |                                | disproportionate   |
|               |                                | representation of  |
|               |                                | racial or ethic    |
|               |                                | groups in special  |
|               |                                | education and      |
|               |                                | related services   |
|               |                                | that was the       |
|               |                                | result of          |
|               |                                | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification are |
|               |                                | in compliance with |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
|               |                                | of 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §§300.111, 300.201 |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311.   |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 10\. Percent  | The State revised the          | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of districts  | improvement activities for     | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| with          | this indicator and OSEP        | SPP/APR response   |
| dis           | accepts those revisions.       | table required the |
| proportionate |                                | State to include   |
| r             | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | in its FFY 2006    |
| epresentation | data for this indicator are    | APR, due February  |
| of racial and | .16%.                          | 1, 2008, data on   |
| ethnic groups |                                | the percent of     |
| in specific   | The State reported the actual  | districts          |
| disability    | number of districts determined | identified in FFY  |
| categories    | in FFY 2006 to have            | 2005 with          |
| that is the   | disproportionate               | disproportionate   |
| result of     | representation of racial or    | representation of  |
| inappropriate | ethnic groups in specific      | racial and ethnic  |
| id            | disability categories that was | groups in specific |
| entification. | the result of inappropriate    | disability         |
|               | identification.                | categories that is |
| \[Compliance  |                                | the result of      |
| Indicator\]   | The State did not provide      | inappropriate      |
|               | valid and reliable data        | identification,    |
|               | because the State did not      | and describe how   |
|               | provide separate actual target | the State made     |
|               | data for Indicator 9 and 10,   | that               |
|               | and OSEP cannot distinguish    | determination.     |
|               | between the two. The State did |                    |
|               | distinguish between those      | The State did not  |
|               | districts with                 | submit valid and   |
|               | disproportionate               | reliable data and  |
|               | representation under Indicator | the State must     |
|               | 9 and 10, but did not make the | provide the        |
|               | distinction in reporting that  | required data for  |
|               | two districts reported that    | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
|               | their disproportionate         | 2006, in addition  |
|               | representation was the result  | to the data for    |
|               | of inappropriate               | FFY 2007, in the   |
|               | identification. In addition    | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|               | the State did not examine data | February 1, 2009.  |
|               | for FFY 2006 for the           |                    |
|               | underrepresentation of racial  | The State reported |
|               | and ethnic groups in specific  | that the           |
|               | disability categories. As a    | noncompliance      |
|               | result of the lack of valid    | identified in FFY  |
|               | and reliable data, OSEP could  | 2006 was not       |
|               | not determine whether there    | corrected. In      |
|               | was progress or slippage or    | reporting on       |
|               | whether the State met its      | correction of this |
|               | target. Another reason that    | noncompliance in   |
|               | OSEP could not determine       | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | whether there was progress or  | due February 1,    |
|               | slippage because the State     | 2009, the State    |
|               | still has not determined       | must distinguish   |
|               | whether the disproportionate   | which              |
|               | representation it identified   | noncompliance was  |
|               | in the FFY 2005 SPP was the    | in LEAs identified |
|               | result of inappropriate        | under Indicator    |
|               | identification.                | 10.                |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | OSEP could not determine if    | The State must     |
|               | LEAs identified in FFY 2005 as | review its         |
|               | having disproportionate        | improvement        |
|               | representation of racial or    | activities and     |
|               | ethnic groups in specific      | revise, if         |
|               | disability categories that was | appropriate, to    |
|               | the result of inappropriate    | ensure they will   |
|               | identification are in          | enable the State   |
|               | compliance with the            | to demonstrate in  |
|               | requirements of 34 CFR         | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | §§300.111, 300.201 and 300.301 | due February 1,    |
|               | through 300.311 because the    | 2009, that the     |
|               | State did not complete the     | State has in       |
|               | identification process for FFY | effect policies    |
|               | 2005.                          | and procedures as  |
|               |                                | required by 34 CFR |
|               |                                | §300.173 and that  |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified in FFY  |
|               |                                | 2005 and FFY 2006  |
|               |                                | as having          |
|               |                                | disproportionate   |
|               |                                | representation of  |
|               |                                | racial or ethnic   |
|               |                                | groups in specific |
|               |                                | disability         |
|               |                                | categories that    |
|               |                                | was the result of  |
|               |                                | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification are |
|               |                                | in compliance with |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
|               |                                | of 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §§300.111, 300.201 |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311.   |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 11\. Percent  | The State did not report FFY   | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of children   | 2006 data for this indicator.  | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| with parental |                                | SPP/APR response   |
| consent to    |                                | table required the |
| evaluate, who |                                | State to include   |
| were          |                                | in the February 1, |
| evaluated     |                                | 2008 APR, due      |
| within 60     |                                | February 1, 2008,  |
| days (or      |                                | the required       |
| State         |                                | baseline data      |
| established   |                                | demonstrating      |
| timeline).    |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
| \[Compliance  |                                | of 34 CFR          |
| Indicator\]   |                                | §300.301(c)(1).    |
|               |                                | The State did not  |
|               |                                | submit the         |
|               |                                | required baseline  |
|               |                                | data. Thus, the    |
|               |                                | State has not      |
|               |                                | submitted the      |
|               |                                | required baseline  |
|               |                                | data for either of |
|               |                                | the last two       |
|               |                                | years.             |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | Although the State |
|               |                                | reported last year |
|               |                                | that it would      |
|               |                                | collect data on    |
|               |                                | this indicator in  |
|               |                                | 2006-2007, the     |
|               |                                | State indicated in |
|               |                                | the FFY 2006       |
|               |                                | revision to the    |
|               |                                | SPP that the data  |
|               |                                | system was not     |
|               |                                | completed in time  |
|               |                                | for 2006-2007      |
|               |                                | collection. The    |
|               |                                | State reported     |
|               |                                | that it is         |
|               |                                | finalizing a data  |
|               |                                | collection         |
|               |                                | mechanism for the  |
|               |                                | required baseline  |
|               |                                | data and that all  |
|               |                                | districts will     |
|               |                                | report a           |
|               |                                | representative     |
|               |                                | sample in          |
|               |                                | 2007-2008. The     |
|               |                                | State must provide |
|               |                                | the required       |
|               |                                | baseline data in   |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009.              |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State must     |
|               |                                | review its         |
|               |                                | improvement        |
|               |                                | activities and     |
|               |                                | revise them, if    |
|               |                                | appropriate, to    |
|               |                                | ensure they will   |
|               |                                | enable the State   |
|               |                                | to provide data in |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009,              |
|               |                                | demonstrating that |
|               |                                | the State is in    |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the timely         |
|               |                                | evaluations        |
|               |                                | requirements in 34 |
|               |                                | CFR                |
|               |                                | §300.301(c)(1).    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 12. Percent   | The State did not report FFY   | OSEP's June 15,    |
|     of        | 2006 data for this             | 2007 FFY 2005      |
|     children  | indicator.**[\                 | SPP/APR response   |
|     referred  | ]{.underline}**                | table required the |
|     by Part C |                                | State to include   |
|     prior to  |                                | in the FFY 2006    |
|     age 3,    |                                | APR, due February  |
|     who are   |                                | 1, 2008, the       |
|     found     |                                | required baseline  |
|     eligible  |                                | data demonstrating |
|     for Part  |                                | compliance with    |
|     B, and    |                                | the requirements   |
|     who have  |                                | of 34 CFR          |
|     an IEP    |                                | §300.124. The      |
|     developed |                                | State did not      |
|     and       |                                | submit the         |
|               |                                | required baseline  |
|   implemented |                                | data. Thus, the    |
|     by their  |                                | State has not      |
|     third     |                                | submitted the      |
|               |                                | required baseline  |
|    birthdays. |                                | data for either of |
|               |                                | the last two       |
| \[Compliance  |                                | years.             |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
|               |                                | Although the State |
|               |                                | reported last year |
|               |                                | that it would      |
|               |                                | collect data on    |
|               |                                | this indicator in  |
|               |                                | 2006-2007, the     |
|               |                                | State indicated in |
|               |                                | the FFY 2006       |
|               |                                | revision to the    |
|               |                                | SPP that the data  |
|               |                                | system was not     |
|               |                                | completed in time  |
|               |                                | for 2006-2007      |
|               |                                | collection. The    |
|               |                                | State reported     |
|               |                                | that it is         |
|               |                                | finalizing a data  |
|               |                                | collection         |
|               |                                | mechanism for the  |
|               |                                | required baseline  |
|               |                                | data and all       |
|               |                                | districts will     |
|               |                                | report on a        |
|               |                                | representative     |
|               |                                | sample in          |
|               |                                | 2007-2008. The     |
|               |                                | State must provide |
|               |                                | the required       |
|               |                                | baseline data in   |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009.              |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The FFY 2007       |
|               |                                | revision to the    |
|               |                                | SPP for this       |
|               |                                | indicator does not |
|               |                                | include            |
|               |                                | improvement        |
|               |                                | activities. The    |
|               |                                | State must develop |
|               |                                | and implement      |
|               |                                | improvement        |
|               |                                | activities that    |
|               |                                | will enable the    |
|               |                                | State to provide   |
|               |                                | data in the FFY    |
|               |                                | 2007 APR, due      |
|               |                                | February 1, 2009,  |
|               |                                | demonstrating that |
|               |                                | the State is in    |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the early          |
|               |                                | childhood          |
|               |                                | transition         |
|               |                                | requirements in 34 |
|               |                                | CFR §300.124(b).   |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 13\. Percent  | The State provided baseline    | > OSEP's June 15,  |
| of youth aged | data, targets of 100% and      | > 2007 FFY 2005    |
| 16 and above  | improvement activities and     | > SPP/APR response |
| with an IEP   | OSEP accepts the SPP for this  | > table required   |
| that includes | indicator.                     | > the State to     |
| coordinated,  |                                | > include in the   |
| measurable,   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | > February 1, 2008 |
| annual IEP    | data for this indicator are    | > APR the required |
| goals and     | 20%. The State is using these  | > baseline data    |
| transition    | data to establish a baseline   | > for this         |
| services that | for this indicator. OSEP was   | > indicator. The   |
| will          | unable to determine whether    | > required data    |
| reasonably    | there was progress or slippage | > was provided.    |
| enable the    | because the State did not      |                    |
| student to    | report data in FFY 2005.       | The State must     |
| meet the      |                                | review its         |
| p             | The State did not meet its FFY | improvement        |
| ost-secondary | 2006 target of 100%.           | activities and     |
| goals.        |                                | revise, if         |
|               |                                | appropriate, to    |
| \[Compliance  |                                | ensure they will   |
| Indicator\]   |                                | enable the State   |
|               |                                | to demonstrate in  |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009, that the     |
|               |                                | State is in        |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the secondary      |
|               |                                | transition         |
|               |                                | requirements in 34 |
|               |                                | CFR §300.320(b),   |
|               |                                | including          |
|               |                                | reporting          |
|               |                                | correction of the  |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in the  |
|               |                                | FFY 2006 APR.      |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 14\. Percent  | The State provided baseline    | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of youth who  | data, targets and improvement  | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| had IEPs, are | activities for this indicator  | SPP/APR response   |
| no longer in  | in its SPP and OSEP accepts    | table required the |
| secondary     | the SPP for this indicator.    | State to include   |
| school and    |                                | in the February 1, |
| who have been | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | 2008 APR a         |
| competitively | baseline data for this         | narrative that     |
| employed,     | indicator are 81.71%. However  | defines            |
| enrolled in   | the baseline data and targets  | competitive        |
| some type of  | are based upon limited data    | employment and     |
| postsecondary | that were not collected in a   | postsecondary      |
| school, or    | manner consistent with the     | school as required |
| both, within  | OSEP-approved sampling plan.   | by the             |
| one year of   | As a result, the data are not  | instructions for   |
| leaving high  | valid or reliable.             | the FFY 2005       |
| school.       |                                | SPP/APR. The State |
|               |                                | provided the       |
| \[Results     |                                | required           |
| Indicator;    |                                | narrative.         |
| New\]         |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State did not  |
|               |                                | submit valid and   |
|               |                                | reliable data and  |
|               |                                | the State must     |
|               |                                | provide the        |
|               |                                | required data in   |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009.              |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 15\. General  | The State revised improvement  | OSEP's June 15,    |
| supervision   | activities for this indicator  | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| system        | and OSEP accepts those         | SPP/APR response   |
| (including    | revisions.                     | table required the |
| monitoring,   |                                | State in the       |
| complaints,   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | February 1, 2008   |
| hearings,     | data for this indicator are    | APR to report on   |
| etc.)         | 91.1%. These data represent    | continuing         |
| identifies    | slippage from the FFY 2005     | follow-up on seven |
| and corrects  | data of 94.6%                  | uncorrected        |
| noncompliance |                                | findings of        |
| as soon as    | The State did not meet its FFY | noncompliance      |
| possible but  | 2006 target of 100%.           | identified in FFY  |
| in no case    |                                | 2004. In the FFY   |
| later than    | For the noncompliance from FFY | 2006 APR, the      |
| one year from | 2005 that had not been         | State reported     |
| id            | corrected within one year of   | that four of the   |
| entification. | its identification, the State  | seven have been    |
|               | described a graduated series   | corrected. The     |
| \[Compliance  | of intervention actions,       | State further      |
| Indicator\]   | ranging from the assignment of | reported that      |
|               | a Special Purpose Conservator  | additional         |
|               | or Special Purpose Monitor to  | sanctions have     |
|               | monthly staff follow-up by     | been imposed on    |
|               | e-mail and phone to verify     | the three          |
|               | correction of noncompliance    | districts          |
|               | issues with associated numbers | responsible for    |
|               | of findings and districts.     | the three          |
|               |                                | remaining          |
|               |                                | uncorrected        |
|               |                                | findings.          |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State must     |
|               |                                | demonstrate, in    |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009, that the     |
|               |                                | State has          |
|               |                                | corrected the      |
|               |                                | remaining          |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in      |
|               |                                | Indicator 15 from  |
|               |                                | FFY 2004 and FFY   |
|               |                                | 2005.              |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State must     |
|               |                                | review its         |
|               |                                | improvement        |
|               |                                | activities and     |
|               |                                | revise, if         |
|               |                                | appropriate, to    |
|               |                                | ensure they will   |
|               |                                | enable the State   |
|               |                                | to provide data in |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009,              |
|               |                                | demonstrating that |
|               |                                | the State timely   |
|               |                                | corrected          |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in FFY  |
|               |                                | 2006 (2006-2007)   |
|               |                                | under this         |
|               |                                | indicator in       |
|               |                                | accordance with 20 |
|               |                                | U.S.C.             |
|               |                                | 1232d(b)(3)(E) and |
|               |                                | 34 CFR §§300.149   |
|               |                                | and 300.600.       |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | In addition, in    |
|               |                                | responding to      |
|               |                                | Indicators 4 and   |
|               |                                | 13, the State must |
|               |                                | specifically       |
|               |                                | identify and       |
|               |                                | address the        |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in this |
|               |                                | table under those  |
|               |                                | indicators.        |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 16\. Percent  | The State revised the          | OSEP appreciates   |
| of signed     | improvement activities for     | the State's        |
| written       | this indicator and OSEP        | efforts regarding  |
| complaints    | accepts those revisions.       | compliance with    |
| with reports  |                                | the timely         |
| issued that   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | complaint          |
| were resolved | data for this indicator are    | resolution         |
| within 60-day | 100%. These data represent     | requirements in 34 |
| timeline or a | progress from the FFY 2005     | CFR §300.152.      |
| timeline      | data of 99.5%.                 |                    |
| extended for  |                                |                    |
| exceptional   | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
| circumstances | target of 100%.                |                    |
| with respect  |                                |                    |
| to a          |                                |                    |
| particular    |                                |                    |
| complaint.    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Compliance  |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 17\. Percent  | The State revised improvement  | OSEP appreciates   |
| of fully      | activities for this indicator  | the State's        |
| adjudicated   | and OSEP accepts those         | efforts regarding  |
| due process   | revisions.                     | compliance with    |
| hearing       |                                | timely due process |
| requests that | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | hearing resolution |
| were fully    | data for this indicator are    | requirements in 34 |
| adjudicated   | 100%. These data remain        | CFR §300.515.      |
| within the    | unchanged from the FFY 2005    |                    |
| 45-day        | data of 100%.                  |                    |
| timeline or a |                                |                    |
| timeline that | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
| is properly   | target of 100%.                |                    |
| extended by   |                                |                    |
| the hearing   |                                |                    |
| officer at    |                                |                    |
| the request   |                                |                    |
| of either     |                                |                    |
| party.        |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Compliance  |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 18\. Percent  | The State revised its baseline | OSEP looks forward |
| of hearing    | and targets for this indicator | to the State's     |
| requests that | and OSEP accepts those         | data demonstrating |
| went to       | revisions. The targets were    | improvement in     |
| resolution    | revised to reflect a new       | performance in the |
| sessions that | understanding of the           | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
| were resolved | definition of Settlement       | February 1, 2009.  |
| through       | Agreement, for the purposes of |                    |
| resolution    | this agreement.                |                    |
| session       |                                |                    |
| settlement    | The State's FFY 2006 reported  |                    |
| agreements.   | data for this indicator are    |                    |
|               | 20.4%. OSEP was unable to      |                    |
| \[Results     | determine whether there was    |                    |
| Indicator\]   | progress or slippage because   |                    |
|               | the State used a revised       |                    |
|               | definition of Settlement       |                    |
|               | Agreement and the calculations |                    |
|               | for 2005-06 and 2006-07 are    |                    |
|               | not measuring the same data    |                    |
|               | set.                           |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | OSEP cannot determine if the   |                    |
|               | State made its target, because |                    |
|               | it revised its baseline and    |                    |
|               | provided targets starting with |                    |
|               | FFY 2007.                      |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 19\. Percent  | The State revised the          | OSEP appreciates   |
| of mediations | improvement activities for     | the State's        |
| held that     | this indicator and OSEP        | efforts to improve |
| resulted in   | accepts those revisions.       | performance.       |
| mediation     |                                |                    |
| agreements.   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  |                    |
|               | data for this indicator are    |                    |
| \[Results     | 73.8%. These data represent    |                    |
| Indicator\]   | slippage from the FFY 2005     |                    |
|               | data of 79.6%.                 |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
|               | target of 73.8%.               |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 20\. State    | The State revised the          | OSEP's June 15,    |
| reported data | improvement activities for     | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| (618 and      | this indicator in its SPP and  | SPP/APR response   |
| State         | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | table required the |
| Performance   |                                | State to include   |
| Plan and      | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | in the February 1, |
| Annual        | data for this indicator are    | 2008 APR, data for |
| Performance   | 82.9%.                         | Indicators 7, 11,  |
| Report) are   |                                | 12, and 13, that   |
| timely and    | The State did not meet its FFY | demonstrate        |
| accurate.     | 2006 target of 100%.           | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
| \[Compliance  |                                | in IDEA section    |
| Indicator\]   |                                | 618 and 34 CFR     |
|               |                                | §§76.720 and       |
|               |                                | 300.601(b). The    |
|               |                                | State provided     |
|               |                                | data for Indicator |
|               |                                | 13, but not for    |
|               |                                | Indicators 7, 11   |
|               |                                | and 12. In         |
|               |                                | addition, the      |
|               |                                | State did not      |
|               |                                | provide valid and  |
|               |                                | reliable data for  |
|               |                                | Indicators 9, 10   |
|               |                                | and 14. The State  |
|               |                                | must provide the   |
|               |                                | required data in   |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009.              |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State must     |
|               |                                | review its         |
|               |                                | improvement        |
|               |                                | activities and     |
|               |                                | revise them, if    |
|               |                                | appropriate, to    |
|               |                                | ensure they will   |
|               |                                | enable the State   |
|               |                                | to provide data in |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009,              |
|               |                                | demonstrating that |
|               |                                | the State is in    |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the timely and     |
|               |                                | accurate data      |
|               |                                | requirements in    |
|               |                                | IDEA sections 616  |
|               |                                | and 618 and 34 CFR |
|               |                                | §§76.720 and       |
|               |                                | 300.601(b).        |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+