February 9, 2007

Honorable Wilfred I. Kendall

Minister of Education

Republic of the Marshall Islands

P.O. Box 3

Majuro, Marshall Islands 96960

Dear Minister Kendall:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the Office
of Special Education Programs' (OSEP) recent verification visit to the
Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). As indicated in my letter to you
of September 6, 2006, OSEP is conducting verification visits to States
and the Freely Associated States (FAS) as part of our Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) for ensuring
compliance with, and improving performance under, Parts B and C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We conducted our
visit to RMI during the week of October 9, 2006.

The purpose of our verification reviews of States and the FAS is to
determine how the States and the FAS use their general supervision,
national-reported data collection, and statewide or nationwide
assessment systems to assess and improve national performance, and to
protect child and family rights. The purposes of our verification visit
to RMI are to: (1) understand how the systems work at the national
level; (2) determine how RMI collects and uses data to make monitoring
decisions; and (3) determine the extent to which RMI's systems are
designed to identify and correct noncompliance.

As part of the verification visit to RMI's Ministry of Education (MOE),
OSEP staff met with Mr. Ruthiran Lokeijak, RMI's Director of Special
Education, and Special Education Office (OSE) staff members who are
responsible for: (1) the oversight of general supervision activities
(including monitoring, mediation, complaint resolution, and impartial
due process hearings); (2) the collection and analysis of
nationally-reported data; and (3) ensuring participation in, and the
reporting of, student performance on nationwide assessments. Prior to
and during the visit, OSEP staff reviewed a number of documents,[^1]
including the following: (1) RMI's Annual Performance Report (APR) for
Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002, submitted to OSEP in April 2004; (2)
RMI's APR for FFY 2003, submitted to OSEP in April 2005; (3) RMI's State
Performance Plan (SPP), submitted to OSEP in December 2005; (4) RMI's
eligibility document submissions under Part B of IDEA for FFY\'s 2002
through 2004 and RMI's Part B application for FFY 2005 and FFY 2006; (5)
Guidelines for Including Students with Disabilities in the Marshall
Islands Standard Achievement Test (MISAT) and Criteria for Participation
in an Alternate Assessment, Revised July 2004; (6) the "Marshall Islands
Monitoring Procedures/Special Education Monitoring Procedures" dated May
2004 (special education monitoring procedures), and monitoring
instruments; and (6) other pertinent data sources.

OSEP also conducted a meeting on October 9, 2006 with members of the
Special Education Advisory Council (SEAC) to hear their perspectives on
the strengths and weaknesses of RMI's systems for general supervision,
data collection, and nationwide assessment.

The information that Mr. Lokeijak and his staff provided during the OSEP
visit, together with all of the information that OSEP staff reviewed in
preparation for the visit, greatly enhanced our understanding of RMI's
systems for general supervision, data collection and reporting, and
nationwide assessment. Mr. Lokeijak and his staff were fully engaged and
readily available throughout the duration of the visit. This visit
marked the first official visit from OSEP to RMI, and officials from the
MOE and the OSE, made every effort to ensure the success of the visit.

RMI is a unitary system consisting of 75 public primary schools (grades
K to 8), one middle school on Majuro with grades seven and eight, and
five high schools, serving approximately 10,384 students. All public
elementary and secondary education, kindergarten through grade 12, is
administered and provided by the MOE. The Minister of Education is the
chief executive officer and the Secretary of Education serves as the
chief operating officer. The OSE within the MOE consists of a program
administrator, six special education program specialists, and four
support staff. The Assistant Secretary for Curriculum and Instruction
has oversight responsibility for the OSE. The OSE is responsible for
obligations under Part B of the IDEA, including general supervision and
monitoring.

RMI reported in its SPP that in September 2003, the Republic of the
Marshall Islands Education Act was amended, requiring that: (1) a child
who attains the age of four years be eligible to enroll in, and commence
elementary level education in any school in RMI; and (2) a student who
has successfully completed elementary level education shall be eligible
to enroll in secondary level education in any school in RMI. Until this
past year, a high school entrance examination (the eighth grade
achievement test) was administered to all public and private school
eighth graders to determine which students would be admitted to the five
public high schools each year. However, according to MOE officials,
implementation of the new legislative provisions regarding a student\'s
eligibility for secondary education beyond the 8th grade may be delayed
due to lack of space.

# General Supervision

> In reviewing RMI's general supervision system, OSEP collected
> information regarding a number of elements, including whether RMI: (1)
> has systemic, data-based, and reasonable approaches to identifying and
> correcting noncompliance; (2) has identified any barriers (e.g.,
> limitations on authority, insufficient staff or other resources, etc.)
> that impede RMI's ability to identify and correct noncompliance; (3)
> utilizes guidance, technical assistance, follow-up, and \--if
> necessary \-- sanctions, to ensure timely correction of noncompliance;
> (4) has dispute resolution systems that ensure the timely resolution
> of complaints and due process hearings; and (5) has mechanisms in
> place to compile and integrate data across systems (e.g., 618
> national-reported data, large-scale assessments, previous monitoring
> results, etc.) to identify systemic issues and problems.

OSEP believes that RMI has made reasonable progress in modifying its
systems for general supervision to address the concerns raised in OSEP's
March 29, 2006 letter responding to RMI\'s SPP and OSEP\'s September 29,
2005 letter responding to RMI\'s FFY 2003 APR. However, OSEP is unable
to conclude at this time that RMI's general supervision system is
reasonably designed to ensure the identification and timely correction
of noncompliance. To ensure that RMI\'s general supervision system can
be reasonably designed to identify and correct noncompliance, RMI must
revise its general supervision system consistent with the requested
documentation described in this letter.

> RMI's general supervision system components include: (1) direct
> supervision of all public schools, programs, and services; (2)
> technical assistance to all schools and programs in the Marshall
> Islands; (3) data collection and analysis through the Special
> Education Information Management System (SEIMS); (4) program
> assessment through self-evaluation involving the SEAC; (5) on-site
> monitoring; (6) management of special education complaints, including
> dissemination of rights and procedures, mediation and due process
> hearings; and (7) resolution of issues "through customary practices."
>
> [Monitoring]{.underline}
>
> During the verification visit, OSEP learned that RMI uses a variety of
> on-site review processes to gain an overall understanding of program
> performance, identify noncompliance, and assist schools in corrective
> action and improvement planning activities. RMI officials reported
> that the OSE conducts on-site monitoring on a three-year cycle of
> twenty-five schools on the twenty-four atolls that comprise RMI, in
> accordance with the special education monitoring procedures.
> Monitoring findings are based on information from the school
> self-assessment, on-site program and document reviews, and interviews
> with school personnel and parents.

## Identification of Noncompliance

OSEP's September 29, 2005 letter in response to RMI's FFY 2003 APR,
commended RMI for updating its monitoring procedures and data collection
instruments, and acknowledged that RMI's monitoring procedures and
monitoring instruments addressed many requirements of the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, but that RMI would
have to update these documents to be consistent with changes made to
Part B of IDEA in IDEA 2004. In implementing the current monitoring
procedures, OSE staff explained that each school completes the
Compliance Review Checklist that requires a yes/no response to questions
covering referral, parent notice, placement decisions, individualized
education program (IEP) development, parents' rights, transportation,
discipline, confidentiality, and access to student records. Special
education teachers also complete a Compliance Review Checklist that
requires a yes/no response to questions covering IEP development, IEP
conference participants, when placement decisions are made and the
provision of needed related services. Open-ended questions ask teachers
to identify needed inservice training and unresolved problems
encountered in teaching special education students. In addition, the
site visit team reviews *all* special education files and completes a
file review checklist that covers identification and evaluation, IEP
content and meeting participation, placement in the least restrictive
environment and reevaluation. The site visit team also conducts
interviews with regular education and special education teachers,
building administrators and parents to verify data collected from
self-assessments and file reviews.

RMI issues written monitoring reports to schools and provides copies to
the SEAC for discussion and input. Monitoring reports are sent directly
to the special education teachers with a copy to the principals.
According to the special education monitoring procedures, the principal
is responsible for working with the OSE to develop a corrective action
plan or an improvement plan. OSEP confirmed that this is RMI\'s practice
during teacher interviews at the verification visit.

Based on OSEP's review of a complete monitoring file and interviews with
MOE-OSE officials about that file, OSEP believes that the MOE-OSE has
difficulty in making determinations of what constitutes noncompliance
with Part B requirements. In the monitoring file that OSEP reviewed,
clear documentation about what constitutes a finding of noncompliance
that requires correction was lacking. It appears to OSEP that findings
identified as areas for improvement may actually be findings that should
have been identified as noncompliance with applicable Part B
requirements. In one instance, a file provided no basis for RMI's
determination why an area was identified as in need of improvement or as
a finding of noncompliance with Part B requirements.

MOE-OSE staff indicated to OSEP during the verification visit that they
need more training on how to determine when a particular school or atoll
is not in compliance with Part B requirements, and when the need for
corrective action is triggered. OSEP encourages MOE-OSE officials to
engage in careful study of the reauthorized statute and the final Part B
regulations and to use the technical assistance materials provided by
OSEP to clarify these requirements posted on the Department\'s website
at www.idea.ed.gov. In addition, OSEP encourages MOE-OSE to use the
Related Requirements document attached to the SPP/APR package to assist
them in making determinations of compliance and noncompliance with Part
B requirements. Within 60 days from the date of this letter, RMI must
provide OSEP either: (1) documentation that its monitoring system is
effective in identifying deficiencies with Part B requirements as
findings of noncompliance with Part B requirements; or (2) a plan to
revise its monitoring system to ensure that it is effective in
identifying noncompliance with Part B requirements no later than
February 1, 2008, the due date for the FFY 2006 APR to OSEP. Failure to
provide the required documentation at that time may affect RMI\'s status
under section 616(d) of the IDEA.

### Timely Correction of Noncompliance 

OSEP\'s September 29, 2005 letter indicated that, based on a review of
the special education monitoring procedures, it was unable to determine
whether RMI had procedures to ensure the correction of deficiencies
identified through monitoring as soon as possible, and in no case later
than one year from identification. RMI reported in its SPP, that it
would revise its monitoring procedures to include correction of
noncompliance within one year of identification when other necessary
revisions are made to its procedures following the publication of final
regulations for IDEA 2004 in the [Federal Register]{.underline}.

According to RMI\'s special education monitoring procedures, the process
for correction is as follows: (1) the school must respond to RMI's
Monitoring Report within two weeks; (2) the monitoring team reviews the
school's response and determines agreement or disagreement with the
school's proposed actions; (3) if the proposed actions are not approved,
the Director of Special Education submits the Monitoring Report to the
Secretary of Education requesting administrative action to enforce
compliance; (4) periodic monitoring visits are scheduled to the school
to verify implementation of the Corrective Action Plan; (5) each
November, the Special Education Director submits a report of the year's
compliance visits to the Secretary of Education; and (6) if a school has
been found in continuing noncompliance, the Director of Special
Education consults with the Secretary of Education to implement adverse
action, such as termination of personnel responsible for continuing
noncompliance in a school or agency. RMI also reported that improvements
are typically made within three to four months of receiving the
monitoring report. MOE-OSE staff explained that if improvement does not
occur, a corrective action would be issued, but that they have never had
to issue a corrective action. Schools inform the OSE when they have
completed improvement activities and MOE-OSE monitoring staff conducts
an on-site visit to verify that improvements have been made.

Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E) and 34 CFR §300.149 of the final
Part B regulations, States are required to ensure that noncompliance is
corrected in a timely manner. Thus, the time for making corrective
action is triggered once the noncompliance is identified. RMI\'s general
supervision system must be effective in ensuring the correction of
identified noncompliance as soon as possible, and no later than one year
of identification. However, it continued to be OSEP\'s impression during
the verification visit that the requirement to make corrective action is
not triggered until the school or atoll has been unsuccessful in
addressing the area identified as in need of improvement. Regardless of
whether the noncompliance is reported as an area "in need of
improvement" or "requiring corrective action," the noncompliance must be
corrected within one year of identification.

OSEP has been informed subsequent to the verification visit that RMI has
revised its policies and procedures consistent with the reauthorized
IDEA and the final Part B regulations, which became effective on October
13, 2006. OSEP looks forward to reviewing RMI\'s revised monitoring
procedures which specify that RMI requires correction of identified
noncompliance as soon as possible, and no later than one year of
identification and will respond to RMI regarding this submission in the
letter responding to RMI\'s FFY 2005 APR. RMI must also must provide
data in its FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, demonstrating that it is
RMI\'s practice to require correction of identified noncompliance as
soon as possible, and in no case later than one year from the date of
identification of the noncompliance through monitoring.

### Guidance and Technical Assistance

MOE-OSE staff provides technical assistance during monitoring visits,
through weekly scheduled short-wave radio conferences with schools, and
through dissemination of information in English and in Marshallese. For
two weeks in the summer, when school personnel are still working, RMI
conducts mandatory teacher training as well as principal training
institutes. A primary focus of training is to provide updated
information on new procedures and curriculum, and instructions on how to
complete required paperwork. Teacher's responses to questions from the
on-site teacher interview concerning issues they need help with also
drive the content of training.

Monitoring officials identified three areas that require ongoing
training: increased knowledge of the IEP process; child identification;
and how to use data to improve programs.

RMI has used its General Supervision Enhancement Grant to develop an
off-island short-wave radio communication system that allows MOE-OSE
content specialists and monitors to communicate with school personnel
and provide technical assistance before and after an on-site visit. This
system also provides a communication vehicle that enables MOE-OSE staff
to provide information to Steering Committee members who reside in outer
atolls to keep them informed of and involved in continuous improvement
activities. RMI also uses short-wave radio announcements to communicate
important information to school personnel throughout RMI. In addition to
the weekly scheduled conference calls with schools, the central office
is available every weekday from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to answer
questions from school personnel. The most common questions users ask
concern how to work effectively with students with disabilities and how
to complete required forms. A weeklong training for school personnel is
planned for next summer about revisions to the monitoring system that
will be made to reflect the requirements of the reauthorized IDEA.

## 

## MOE-OSE officials also acknowledged their need for more information on the use of effective strategies to address the behavior of a child whose behavior impedes learning.[^2] OSEP encourages RMI to work with its technical assistance partners to address this need. Information on positive behavioral interventions can be found on the Regional Resource and Federal Center Network web site at [*http://www.rrfcnetwork.org*](http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/), which includes information on the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports.

During the verification visit, RMI reported that a barrier to
identifying and correcting noncompliance is the lack of staff to conduct
on-site monitoring activities in schools on all of the atolls. Monitors
must travel significant distances, frequently by boat, and stay
overnight in empty classrooms for lack of other accommodations. OSEP
acknowledges these challenges and encourages RMI to work with its
technical assistance partners to increase its capacity to monitor
electronically, and develop strategies to focus its on-site efforts
where the need is greatest.

#### 

#### [Complaint Management and Due Process Systems]{.underline} 

While RMI has established procedures for filing a complaint and
requesting a due process hearing, RMI officials reported during the
verification visit that no complaints were filed under 34 CFR §§300.660
to 300.662[^3] and no requests were made for a due process hearing under
34 CFR §300.507,[^4] since the establishment of these procedures in
1992. In Attachment 1 of the 2004 SPP, RMI reported that there were no
requests for complaint investigations, mediations, and due process
hearings for the 2004-2005 reporting period. RMI officials reported in
the SPP, and confirmed in interviews with OSEP during the verification
visit that, "The lack of formal complaints and hearings is a reflection
of custom and behavior wherein public confrontation is customarily
avoided. The formalization of IDEA 2004's 'meeting with a disinterested
party' (such as customary "elders" in Marshallese society) to resolve
issues is very much the practice today. Parents are informed of their
right to access any of these mechanisms."

RMI reported to OSEP during the verification visit, that it provides a
copy of its procedural safeguard notice, [Parent and Student Rights in
Special Education]{.underline}, to parents and the public, and
interviews parents as part of the on-site monitoring activities about
receiving and understanding their rights. RMI also provided nationwide
parent training over the last two summers. Following the verification
visit, RMI confirmed that it had updated its State complaint, due
process and mediation procedures to be consistent with the reauthorized
IDEA, and will provide them to OSEP along with its FFY 2005 APR, due
February 1, 2007. OSEP looks forward to reviewing those procedures
submitted with RMI\'s FFY 2005 APR.

# 

# Collection of Data Under Section 618 of the IDEA

In reviewing RMI's system for data collection and reporting, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
RMI: (1) provides clear guidance and ongoing training to local
programs/public agencies regarding requirements and procedures for
reporting data under section 618 of the IDEA; (2) implements procedures
to determine whether the individuals who enter and report data at the
local level do so accurately and in a manner that is consistent with
RMI's procedures, OSEP guidance, and section 618; (3) implements
procedures for identifying anomalies in data that are reported, and
correcting any inaccuracies; and (4) has addressed barriers to the
implementation of procedures for data collection and reporting data
under section 618 of the IDEA.

Based on the information provided to OSEP during the verification visit,
it appears that RMI's system for collecting and reporting data is
reasonably designed to ensure the accuracy of the data that the RMI is
required to report to OSEP under section 618 of the IDEA. RMI reported
in the SPP that its data collection system was a compilation of student
information from the child's current IEP as well as information compiled
annually through surveys and special education school monitoring
reports, and RMI's central data system for all public schools. MOE-OSE
staff reported that their ability to identify and correct issues and use
monitoring and trend data more effectively will improve when updates to
the SEIMS are completed.

As reported in the SPP and confirmed in interviews with OSEP during the
verification visit, RMI enters the information collected into SEIMS, a
computer spreadsheet. RMI reported during the verification visit that
problems with the data system that RMI identified in the SPP, such as
loss of historical information when updated and limitations of the
aggregated data to answer various program questions, have been addressed
with its updated system. During OSEP's verification visit, RMI reported
that it is now using Access software that enables SEIMS to collect
additional fields of information, retain historical information, and to
articulate with the regular MOE data system. RMI reported during the
verification visit that the system will be further upgraded to be a
web-based system for "real time," "on-line," collection and maintenance
of data. At the time of OSEP's visit, RMI was in the process of adding
new data fields and linkages and making the conversion to an online
system. RMI reported to OSEP that the new system is scheduled for
completion by June 2007, and training will be provided in the summer.

RMI reported to OSEP that MOE-OSE manually double-checks data reports to
identify data errors. RMI recently hired a new data specialist to assist
in conducting manual error checks to improve data accuracy. Data
verification procedures are followed to ensure for example, an
unduplicated child count, by counting current IEPs and checking the
count against placement tables. Teachers and principals certify the
count when they send it. To improve accuracy, RMI reported that the main
system will be able to generate unique student identifiers that will be
assigned to children when they first enter kindergarten beginning in
March 2007.

# Currently, contact is made with its outer atolls by short-wave radio and documents are forwarded and received through courier by airplane and/or boat transport, and by visits to schools. There is no FAX capability and there are no post offices. Planes leave once a week and ships go out once every four months, on schedules that are unreliable. RMI officials further explained that the most efficient and cost effective method of transporting the necessary documents is to prevail upon an airline passenger to deliver them. To overcome these challenges, RMI is establishing an online system for sending and receiving documents through a satellite Internet system and solar powered electricity to run computers. The atolls without satellite capability will be able to download information on disks using a solar-powered electrical system to power computers.

As discussed above, RMI's system for collecting and reporting data
includes several safeguards to ensure accuracy, reliability and validity
which will be further strengthened with the full implementation of
RMI\'s web-based system. OSEP learned during the verification visit that
RMI is engaged in an impressive process to overcome significant barriers
to implement procedures for collecting and reporting timely and accurate
data presented by its geography***.*** OSEP requests that RMI keep it
informed of its progress in ensuring timely and accurate data through
the FFY 2005 APR and subsequent APR submissions to OSEP.

# Nationwide Assessment

In reviewing RMI's system for statewide (nationwide) assessment, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
RMI: (1) establishes procedures for nationwide assessment that meet the
participation, alternate assessment, and reporting requirements of Part
B, including ensuring the participation of all students, including
students with disabilities, and the provision of appropriate
accommodations; (2) provides clear guidance and training to public
agencies regarding those procedures and requirements; (3) monitors local
implementation of those procedures and requirements; and (4) reports on
the performance of children with disabilities on those assessments, in a
manner consistent with those requirements. During the verification
visit, OSEP learned about the components of RMI\'s assessment system
from presentations by RMI staff.

[Assessment Procedures]{.underline}

RMI requires that every student, including students with disabilities,
participate in nationwide assessments that measure educational
performance and provide systemic indicators of progress in the general
curriculum. Because RMI does not participate in and is not bound by the
requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), RMI does not
calculate adequate yearly progress for its schools. Assessment
specialists reported that a challenge to implementing the assessment
program is keeping pace with the ongoing changes in curriculum
standards.

During the verification visit, OSEP learned that RMI administered the
Marshall Islands Standard Achievement Test (MISAT) in fourth grade and
eighth grade in the 2004-2005 school year. RMI currently administers the
MISAT in grades three, six and eight to assess progress in reading (in
English and Marshallese), and mathematics.

RMI has established procedures for participation of students with
disabilities in general assessments and alternate assessments. According
to written procedures and information provided in interviews with
assessment specialists, OSEP learned that accommodations can be provided
on all achievement tests at every grade level, and are available to all
students with disabilities who require them. RMI's document, [Guidelines
for Including Students with Disabilities in the Marshall Islands
Standard Achievement Test (MISAT) and Criteria for Participation in the
Alternate Assessment,]{.underline} developed in 2002 and revised in
2004, was developed to assist IEP teams in making appropriate decisions
regarding how students with disabilities will participate in RMI's
assessment program.

According to assessment specialists interviewed, alternate assessments
(RMI uses a portfolio assessment) are aligned with nationwide
achievement standards and are available for the 3^rd^ grade and 6^th^
grade MISATs.

OSEP concluded in its March 29, 2006 letter responding to RMI's SPP,
that it was unable to determine whether RMI was conducting alternate
assessments as required by Part B for those students with disabilities
who cannot participate in the eighth grade achievement test, and
required that RMI include information in the APR, due February 1, 2007,
clarifying whether it conducts alternate assessments for all nationwide
assessments.

In materials submitted in preparation for the verification visit, RMI
indicated that the eighth grade administration of the MISAT is for high
school admission purposes only. However, OSEP\'s interviews with
assessment specialists during the verification visit reported to OSEP
that the eighth grade test is used as an achievement measure first as
well as an admission test. If the eighth grade MISAT is administered to
all students in RMI, both those with and without disabilities, not just
to those students seeking admission to secondary school, OSEP believes
that the assessment requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16) are applicable
to this assessment. Specifically, under 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16)(C)(i) and
(iii), RMI must conduct alternate assessments in the case of a
nationwide assessment for those children with disabilities who cannot
participate in the regular assessment program with accommodations as
indicated in their respective IEPs. During the verification visit, RMI
indicated to OSEP that an alternate assessment for the eighth grade
achievement test will be developed with the technical assistance of a
regional General Supervision Enhancement Grant alternate assessment
project at the Guam Center for Excellence In Developmental Disability
Education, Research, and Service, with a plan to administer it in 2008.
Within 60 days from the date of this letter, RMI must provide OSEP with
a written plan to meet the requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16)(C) to
conduct an alternate assessment for the eighth grade MISAT by the FFY
2006 APR, due February 1, 2008. Failure to conduct an alternate
assessment for the eighth grade MISAT for those students with
disabilities who cannot take the regular eighth grade MISAT with
accommodations by June 1, 2007, may affect RMI\'s status under section
616(d) of the IDEA and RMI\'s FFY 2007 grant award under Part B of IDEA.

According to assessment specialists interviewed, MOE is considering
replacing the MISAT with the 4th grade Pacific Island Literacy Levels, a
regionally-normed test that allows comparisons among different Pacific
Island groups in math, and reading in English. Accommodations can be
provided for this test but an alternate assessment still needs to be
developed. OSEP reminds RMI of its obligation under 20 U.S.C.
1412(a)(16)(C) to conduct an alternate assessment for those students
with disabilities who cannot participate in any regular nationwide
assessment with accommodations as indicated in their respective IEPs.

###### Guidance and Training

MOE-OSE staff reported during the verification visit that written
guidance on assessments is provided through: the [Special Education
Procedures Handbook]{.underline} and RMI's [Guidelines for Including
Students with Disabilities in the Marshall Islands Standard Achievement
Test and Criteria for Participation in the Alternate
Assessment]{.underline}. MOE-OSE staff and assessment specialists
provide training on the guidelines and ongoing technical assistance to
schools to ensure that all children with disabilities are participating
appropriately in the national assessment program. Training on policies
and procedures for national assessments is provided annually during the
summer Teachers' Institute. Special education teachers and regular
education teachers received training on the alternate assessment last
year. Assessment specialists reported that in the 2005-2006 school year,
alternate assessments were required in the IEPs of two sixth grade
students and that alternate assessments were conducted consistent with
RMI's alternate assessment procedures.

####### Local Implementation

RMI reported during the verification visit that it monitors to ensure
that IEP Teams follow established procedures to make an appropriate
determination about how students will participate in the assessment.
MISAT proctors are provided special instruction. Assessment specialists
indicated that MOE can track the number of students who participated in
the assessment through SEIMS, but that there was no procedure to track
whether students with IEPs were provided the testing accommodations
specified in their IEPs. At the time of OSEP's verification visit,
procedures were being revised to provide all proctors with a list of all
students to be tested, including specific information

for each child with an IEP reflecting accommodations needed, if any.
MOE-OSE reported that RMI would soon be able to use SEIMS to monitor
compliance with participation requirements.

[Reporting]{.underline}

RMI reports MISAT results to schools and to the appropriate Nitijela
(legislative) committees. Information has been discussed on radio, and
newspaper articles have been published. Scores are used to prioritize
training for low performing schools, and to get additional funds to hire
more teachers. Performance data have also been used to demote and
reassign school personnel. RMI reported to OSEP that data are available
in each school and that it is planning to post a notice regarding the
availability of performance data in the national newspaper. The public
reporting requirements in Part B of IDEA (Part B) regarding assessments
do not apply unless RMI reports publicly on the participation and
performance of nondisabled children on nationwide assessments. Under 20
U.S.C. 1412(a)(16)(D), RMI is required to report publicly and to the
Secretary with the same frequency and in the same detail that it reports
on the assessment of nondisabled children on the number of children with
disabilities participating in regular assessments, the number of those
children who receive accommodations in order to participate in those
assessments, the number of children with disabilities participating in
alternate assessments, as well as data on the performance of children
with disabilities on those assessments.

Assessment specialists interviewed during the verification visit
reported that 50% of third graders scored at the lowest beginning and
developing levels for English and Marshallese. They attributed these low
scores to the lack of qualified teachers, over half of whom have only a
high school diploma. Another contributing factor is that the curriculum
standards are only three years old and all teachers are trying to learn
them. RMI has made it a priority to increase the supply of qualified
personnel through its Comprehensive Personnel Development Plan (CSPD)
included in its improvement strategies under Indicator 3 of its SPP.
OSEP requests that RMI keep it informed of its progress in this area
through your FFY 2005 APR and subsequent APR submissions to OSEP.

# 

# Conclusion

OSEP looks forward to reviewing RMI's revised monitoring procedures
specifying that RMI ensures correction of noncompliance identified
through monitoring as soon as possible and no later than one year of
identification, submitted with its FFY 2005 APR on January 30, 2007.

In addition, as discussed in the general supervision section and
assessment section of this letter, RMI must submit to OSEP within 60
days from the date of this letter:

(1) documentation that its monitoring system identifies noncompliance
    with Part B requirements through monitoring; *[or]{.underline}* a
    plan to revise its monitoring system to ensure it is effective in
    identifying noncompliance with Part B requirements no later than
    February 1, 2008, the date for RMI\'s FFY 2006 APR submission to
    OSEP. Failure to provide the required documentation at that time may
    affect RMI\'s status under section 616(d) of the IDEA; and

(2) a written plan to meet the requirements in 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16)(C)
    to conduct an alternate assessment for the eighth grade MISAT by the
    FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit. We were especially impressed with RMI's demonstration
of its innovative use of technology to reach the outer atolls. As noted
above, we request that you keep us informed concerning your progress in
updating your data management system and implementing your CSPD to
ensure that teachers and other personnel providing special education and
related services are adequately prepared and trained, through the FFY
2005 APR and subsequent APR submissions to OSEP.

We look forward to collaborating with RMI as you continue to work to
improve results for children with disabilities and their families.

> Sincerely,

/s/Alexa Posny

Alexa Posny, Ph.D.

Director

> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Mr. Ruthiran Lokeijak

Director of Special Education

[^1]: Documents reviewed as part of the verification process were not
    reviewed for legal sufficiency but rather to inform OSEP's
    understanding of your State's systems.

[^2]: The regulation at 34 CFR §300.320(a), previously 34 CFR
    §300.347(a)(1)), addresses present levels of performance related to
    the annual goals that must be included in the IEP for each child
    with a disability. Under 34 CFR §300.324(a)(2)(i), previously
    §300.346(a)(2)(i), in the case of a child whose behavior impedes the
    child's learning or that of others, the IEP Team must consider the
    use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other
    strategies, to address that behavior."

[^3]: These regulatory provisions have been redesignated, with several
    changes, as 34 CFR §§300.151 through 300.153 in the final Part B
    regulations, which became effective on October 13, 2006. The
    requirement for a State educational agency to issue a decision on
    the complaint within 60 days from the date that the complaint is
    filed is unchanged from prior regulations, and the State\'s
    procedures must continue to permit extension of the 60-day timeline
    only if exceptional circumstances exist with respect to a particular
    complaint or if the parent or the individual or organization and the
    public agency involved agree to extend the time to engage in
    mediation or other alternative dispute resolution procedures
    available in the State. 34 CFR §300.152(b)(1)(1)-(ii).

[^4]: Regulatory provisions regarding due process procedures, with
    several important changes, are found at 34 CFR §§300.507 through
    300.518 of the final Part B regulations, which became effective on
    October 13, 2006. Regulations for due process hearing timelines have
    been redesignated as 34 CFR §300.515(a) and (c) of the final Part B
    regulations. Under the reauthorized IDEA, generally, a 30-day
    resolution process must precede the initiation of the 45-day due
    process hearing timeline, with certain exceptions described in 34
    CFR §300.510 of the final Part B regulations.