September 29, 2005

Honorable Terry Bergeson

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Washington State Office of Public Instruction

Old Capitol Building

P.O. Box 47200

Olympia, Washington 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Bergeson:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to Washington's April 19, 2005
submission of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 Annual Performance
Report (APR) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Part B for the grant period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
The APR reflects actual accomplishments that the State made during the
reporting period, compared to established objectives. The Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) has designed the APR under the IDEA to
provide uniform reporting from States and result in high-quality
information across States. The APR is a significant data source for OSEP
in the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS).

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and include specific data-based determinations
regarding performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas. This
letter responds to the State's FFY 2003 APR and Washington's July 21,
2005 letter on the State's proposed outcome-based monitoring system.
OSEP has set out its comments, analysis and determinations by cluster
area.

*Background*

The conclusion of OSEP's February 28, 2005 FFY 2002 APR response letter
required Washington to provide, in the FFY 2003 APR:

(1) a plan, in accordance with the measures set out in OSEP's February
    28, 2005 verification letter, that included strategies, proposed
    evidence of change, targets and timelines to ensure timely
    correction of deficiencies identified through monitoring that affect
    specific children with disabilities, within a reasonable period of
    time, not to exceed one year from the date that OSEP accepted the
    plan (34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii) and 20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3));

(2) data and analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance, with a
    report to OSEP, including documentation of compliance as soon as
    possible, but not later than 30 days following one year from
    February 28, 2005, in the following areas:

    a.  complaints were resolved within 60 days from the date of receipt
        of the complaint, unless the timeline was extended due to
        exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint
        (34 CFR §300.661(a)(4) and (b));

    b.  decisions in due process hearings are issued no later than 45
        days after the receipt of a request for a hearing, unless the
        hearing officer grants a specific extension of time, at the
        request of either party (34 CFR §300.511);

    c.  children in need of specially designed instruction for behavior
        disorders received required services despite personnel shortages
        (34 CFR §§300.380(a)(2) and 300.300(a)(3))

    d.  children in need of psychological services received required
        services at no cost to the parents in accordance with their IEPs
        (34 CFR §§300.300(a)(3)). Children with disabilities in need of
        physical therapy and/or occupational therapy are receiving those
        services despite personnel shortages (34 CFR §§300.380(a)(2) and
        300.300(a)(3)); and

    e.  each child eligible for Part B services who participated in the
        Part C program had an IEP or individualized family service plan
        (IFSP) in effect by the child's third birthday (34 CFR
        §300.132(b)).

(3) the results of its review of procedures of local educational
    agencies (LEAs) with significant disproportionality in the
    identification and placement of children with disabilities (34 CFR
    §300.755(b)), and if appropriate, revision of policies, procedures
    and practices that occurred during the reporting period;

(4) data and analysis regarding suspension and expulsion rates for
    children with disabilities, as compared to nondisabled children or
    across LEAs in the State.

(5) implementation of strategies and the resulting data demonstrating
    improvement in the following areas:

    a.  collection and timely reporting of accurate data;

    b.  data regarding parent participation at meetings of the
        evaluation and placement teams;

    c.  graduation and drop-out rates;

    d.  performance of children with disabilities on statewide and
        districtwide assessments;

    e.  children with disabilities educated with nondisabled peers to
        the maximum extent appropriate;

    f.  placement decisions for preschool children are being made on an
        individual basis in accordance with applicable regulations;

    g.  early language/communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional
        skills of preschool children with disabilities, including
        documentation of data, targets for improved performance and
        strategies to achieve those targets, or a plan to collect the
        data, including a detailed timeline of the activities necessary
        to implement that plan; and

    h.  data indicating whether students were invited to IEP meetings
        when the purpose of the meeting was consideration of transition
        services and that representatives of other agencies, that might
        be responsible for providing or paying for transition services
        were routinely invited to IEP meetings (34 CFR §300.344(b)).

## General Supervision

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

OSEP's February 28, 2005 letter required that the State submit a plan
for correcting noncompliance involving individual children with
disabilities identified through monitoring, within one year of
identification (20 U.S.C. §1232d and 34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii)). On page
18 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included strategies, proposed evidence
of change, targets and timelines designed to ensure correction of
noncompliance involving individual children as soon as possible, not to
exceed one year of identification, as required in the February 2005
letter. OSEP has reviewed and accepts this plan. The State must include
data and analysis documenting progress toward compliance in the State
Performance Plan (SPP), due December 2, 2005, and provide a final report
to OSEP, including data and analysis demonstrating compliance as soon as
possible, but no later than 30 days following one year from the date of
this letter.

In addition to the FFY 2003 APR, Washington submitted a proposed
monitoring plan on July 21, 2005 to address systemic compliance issues
across districts. The proposed monitoring plan included strategies,
proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines designed to link
outcome-based indicators and associated risk factors with three types of
monitoring visits: (1) focused monitoring visits; (2) technical
assistance visits; and (3) random visits. The proposed indicators for
focused monitoring in the State included: (1) graduation rates; (2)
drop-out rates; (3) Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)
performance; (4) adequate yearly progress; (5) disproportionality; (6)
monitoring results; and (7) least restrictive environment. Other
potential indicators may also be analyzed for incorporation into the
focused monitoring system. OSEP has reviewed and accepts this plan. OSEP
looks forward to reviewing the State's updated data and information in
this area in the SPP.

> [Formal written complaints]{.underline}

OSEP's February 28, 2005 letter required that the State include data and
analysis in its FFY 2003 APR on progress toward compliance with the
requirement that complaints were resolved within 60 days from the date
of the receipt of the complaint, unless the timeline was extended due to
exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint (34 CFR
§300.661(a)(4) and (b)). The State's final report demonstrating
compliance in this area is due March 30, 2006.

On page 17 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State reported that Washington's
Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction's (OSPI's) APR
Citizen Complaint data for FFY 2003 showed that 49 decisions were issued
within the reporting period. Of those, 28 were issued within the 60-day
timeline. Of the three issued beyond 60 days, two were issued one day
after the due date, and one was issued three days after the due date. Of
the 21 decisions with documented extensions for exceptional
circumstances, the two issued outside the extension were issued within
three days after the extension.[^1] The State indicated that of the
complaints with extensions granted due to exceptional circumstances, the
majority were granted an extension of 30 days or less. In the SPP,
Washington should continue to report on its progress in ensuring full
compliance with requirements for timely complaint resolution.

[Mediation]{.underline}

On page 13 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and information
regarding mediation. The data indicated that the percentage of
mediations resulting in agreements compared to the total number of
mediation requests, not including pending mediations, increased over the
last three reporting periods, i.e., 56% during 2000 to 2001, 76% during
2002 to 2003 and 87% during 2003 to 2004. OSEP appreciates the States
efforts in this area and looks forward to reviewing data and information
demonstrating continued improvement in this area in the SPP.

[Due process hearings and reviews]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to include data and
information demonstrating progress toward compliance with the
requirement that decisions in due process hearings were issued no later
than 45 days after the receipt of a request for a hearing, unless the
hearing officer grants a specific extension of time, at the request of
either party (34 CFR §300.511). The State's final report demonstrating
compliance in this area is due March 30, 2006.

In Attachment 1, on page 14 of the APR, there were 158 hearing requests,
29 hearings held, seven decisions issued within the timeline, and 19
decisions were issued within a timeline extended under 34 CFR
§300.511(c). On page 17, Washington indicated that in FY 2003, 26 of the
29 fully adjudicated decisions were issued within the 45-day timeline,
or with documented extensions in accordance with 34 CFR §300.511. OSPI
also identified the strategies it had implemented to ensure timely
issuance of due process hearing decisions. OSEP appreciates the State's
progress in meeting this requirement. In the SPP, the State should
continue to report on its progress in ensuring full compliance with this
requirement.

[Personnel]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to submit: (1) data and
analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance and submit a report to
OSEP, with documentation of compliance as soon as possible, but not
later than 30 days following one year from February 28, 2005 to ensure
that children in need of specially designed instruction for behavior
disorders received required services despite personnel shortages (34 CFR
§§300.380(a)(2) and 300.300(a)(3)); and (2) data demonstrating whether
children with disabilities in need of physical therapy and occupational
therapy services were receiving those services despite personnel
shortages (34 CFR §§300.380(a)(2) and 300.300(a)(3)) and, if data
demonstrated noncompliance, a plan for correction of this noncompliance
as soon as possible, but not later than thirty days from the date OSEP
accepted the plan.

OSEP is unable to determine whether Washington made progress in the area
of noncompliance regarding the provision of specially-designed
instruction for children with behavior disorders since required data
were not included in the FFY 2003 APR. Washington must provide
documentation of compliance regarding the provision of required related
services to children with behavioral disorders no later than March 30,
2006.[^2]

With regard to physical therapy and occupational therapy services, OSEP
has determined that Washington monitors for the provision of all related
services including the provision of physical therapy and occupational
therapy services. Although OSPI has yet to make findings in this area,
OSPI has in place a system for identifying and correcting deficiencies.
OSEP accepts these strategies and appreciates the work of the State in
ensuring compliance in this area.

[Other: Psychological counseling services]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to include data and
analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance, with a report to OSEP
demonstrating correction of the compliance not later than March 30,
2006, with the requirement to ensure that children in need of
psychological counseling services received those services in accordance
with their IEPs, at no cost to the parents (34 CFR §300.300(a)(3)). On
page 4 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
indicating a need to improve performance in the area of provision of
related services. On page 7, OSPI reported that monitoring reviews of
488 service files that included related services across the State's 289
districts found that the provision of related services was an issue in
73% of the districts, but only 28% of the files reviewed. However,
because related services can include speech and language therapy,
occupational therapy, physical therapy, vision and hearing services,
psychological counseling, transportation, etc., and OSPI did not
disaggregate its data, OSEP was unable to determine OSPI's progress
toward compliance regarding the provision of needed psychological
counseling services.

On page 18 of the 2003 APR, the State also included strategies to
improve performance. The State reported that it would revise its
Consolidated Program Review final reports to include requirements for
correction and documentation of child-specific noncompliance, including
psychological counseling, beginning with districts monitored in the
2004-2005 program year. Washington must provide documentation of
compliance no later than March 30, 2006. Data demonstrating compliance
must include disaggregated data for psychological counseling.

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

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide implementation
of strategies and the resulting data demonstrating improvement in the
collection and timely reporting of accurate data. On page 36 of the FFY
2003 APR, the State included information regarding collection and timely
reporting of accurate data indicating that the OSPI special education
office implements an annual data collection bulletin accompanied by
templates with built-in checks and balances used to reduce errors in
district submissions of child count, least restrictive environment,
personnel, and suspension and expulsion data. OSPI regularly reviews the
templates and makes changes based upon feedback from districts. OSEP
appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks forward to
reviewing data and information in the SPP.

## Early Childhood Transition

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to include data and
analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance indicating that each
child eligible for Part B services who participated in the Part C
program had an IEP or IFSP in effect by the child's third birthday (34
CFR §300.132(b)). On page 39 of the APR, Washington stated that for
preschool children determined eligible for Part B services, there was
currently no method or process in place to assess if all children
leaving the Part C program were receiving special education and related
services by their third birthdays. On page 38, Washington stated that it
was unable to provide data on the numbers of children served under Part
C who transitioned to the Part B program. Washington provided
information on its progress toward compliance that included the
implementation of the following strategies: (1) establishment of data
sharing agreements between Part C and Part B lead agencies; and (2)
planning and development meetings between the State's 619 coordinator
and the Core Student Record System (CSRS) manager. The CSRS was designed
to track all eligible students leaving the Part C program and entering
the Part B special education system as they make this transition into
services by their third birthdays, but OSPI reported that in February of
2005, OSPI's 619 Coordinator met with the CSRS Manager to review data
collection needs and to determine the feasibility of adding data fields
in order to obtain early childhood transition data.

Early childhood transition is an indicator in the SPP under section 616
of IDEA that is due December 2, 2005. The State must submit responsive
baseline data regarding the percentage of children referred by Part C
prior to age 3 and who are found eligible for Part B and receive special
education and related services by their third birthdays in the SPP. The
absence of baseline data in this area will be considered in OSEP\'s
decision about approval of the State\'s SPP.

# *Parent Involvement*

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide information
regarding implementation of strategies and the resulting data
demonstrating improvement in data regarding parent participation at
meetings of the evaluation and placement teams. On page 15 and on page
41 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and information
regarding improvement of parent participation at meetings of the
evaluation and placement teams. Data indicated that parent participation
in this area was assessed through monitoring visits and the corrective
action process. Monitoring data indicated that during the 2003-04
Consolidated Program Review seven files out of 1,239 reviewed had a
finding regarding parent involvement. Parent participation and
involvement was not an issue in mediations conducted in the 2003-04
school year. In the area of citizen complaints, there were eight
findings in the area of parent involvement/participation, and in due
process hearings conducted, six findings were issued. These districts
were required, as part of their corrective actions, to address this
issue and any others found during the investigation by: district
procedural changes: reevaluation; IEP revisions; reimbursement; IEP
meetings; trainings; independent educational evaluations; or
compensatory services. In addition to the onsite Consolidated Program
Review visit, parent surveys are mailed to parents prior to the CPR
team's visit to the district.

The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area, for which
States must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR due February 1,
2007. In the SPP due December 2, 2005, Washington must describe how data
are to be collected for this new indicator so that Washington will be
able to report baseline data and targets in the FFY 2005 APR due
February 1, 2007. OSEP looks forward to reviewing this information in
the SPP. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks
forward to reviewing data and information demonstrating continued
improvement in this area in the SPP.

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

[Disproportionality]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide the results of
its review of policies and procedures of local educational agencies
(LEAs) with significant disproportionality in the identification and
placement of children with disabilities (34 CFR §300.755(b)) and if
appropriate, revision of policies, procedures and practices that
occurred during the reporting period. On page 52 of the APR, Washington
stated that it addresses the issue of disproportionality within the
compliance monitoring process. Procedures, policies, and student files
are reviewed to insure that eligibility and placement decisions are not
biased with regard to the race/ethnicity of the students. Specific
targets were not established for the 2003-04 reporting period because
the State was not aware of any significant disproportionality issues or
problems.

Based on a review of policies, practices and procedures related to
disproportionality, Washington, with the assistance of WESTAT, revised
the process used to determine disproportionality within the State and
identified 11 target areas for improvement in the 2004 through 2005
reporting period. Washington also included strategies to improve
performance in this area that included: (1) reviewing risk ratios for
seven disability categories and two least restrictive environment
categories by five racial/ethnic groups over five years to identify
trends; (2) using the results of its review to set priorities and
targets for disproportionality; and (3) addressing disproportionality in
the State's compliance monitoring process that would examine policies
and procedures to ensure that districts are not systematically
over-identifying children based on race and ethnicity, and placement
decisions were made in conformity with IDEA regulations. OSEP
appreciates the work that Washington has done in this area.

Disproportionality in the representation of racial and ethnic groups in
special education and related services and disproportionality in the
representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability
categories that result from inappropriate identification, are new
indicators in the SPP due December 2, 2005, for which States must
provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR due February 1, 2007. The
State should carefully review the instructions to the SPP in developing
its plans for these collections. In the SPP due December 2, 2005,
Washington must describe how data are to be collected for these new
indicators so that the State will be able to report baseline data and
targets in the FFY 2005 APR due February 1, 2007. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing this information in the SPP.

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

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide data and
information on the implementation of strategies and the resulting data
demonstrating improvement in graduation and drop-out rates of children
with disabilities. On page 57 of the APR, Washington included data and
analysis indicating a need to improve performance in graduation and
drop-out rates for students with disabilities. The data indicated that
the graduation rate of 49.7 percent for students with disabilities was
16 percentage points lower than the 65.7 percent graduation rate of
nondisabled students. The data also indicated that the drop-out rate of
24.1 percent for students with disabilities was 1.9 percent higher than
the 24.3 percent drop-out rate for nondisabled students. The State also
reported its efforts to standardize data definitions, data collection,
and calculation methods to measure and report graduation and drop-out
data, and stated that data for 2003 through 2004 were not available for
measuring progress or slippage. The State included strategies to improve
performance that included: (1) establishing standard definitions and
calculations that provide a basis to compare data for students with
disabilities in this area with State averages and other "adequate yearly
progress" groups; (2) targeting districts with the largest discrepancies
between local data and State averages for further monitoring and
technical assistance; and (3) developing a rating scale to assist
districts in analyzing their performance. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing information in the SPP, including the implementation of
strategies and resulting data and analysis.

[Suspension and expulsion]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide data and
information on the implementation of strategies and the resulting data
demonstrating improvement in suspension and expulsion of children with
disabilities. On pages 59 through 65 of the FFY 2003 APR, Washington
included data and information regarding suspension and expulsion rates
for children with disabilities. It stated that it determined that there
were no significant discrepancies across LEAs. The State included
strategies to improve performance at the district level in this area
that included: (1) developing and implementing procedures to alert
districts when there may be issues in this area; (2) training staff on
appropriate procedures for discipline of children with disabilities
receiving special education through monitoring and in-service training;
and (3) requiring districts to address suspension and expulsion policies
and procedures in the application for Federal special education
flow-through funds. The State also reported on page 63 of the FFY 2003
APR, that districts were required to review policies, practices and
procedures related to suspension and expulsion in their application for
Federal special education flow-through funds. The district's review must
also include the district's plan to either maintain or lower suspension
and expulsion rates depending on the district's specific data reported.
OSEP looks forward to reviewing information in the SPP, including the
implementation of strategies and resulting data and analysis.

[Statewide and district-wide assessment]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide data and
information on the performance of children with disabilities on
statewide and district-wide assessments. On pages 66 through 88 of the
FFY 2003 APR, Washington included data and information on participation
of children with disabilities on statewide and district-wide assessments
indicating that all children with disabilities, except children with
parental exemptions, or children who were absent the day of the test,
participated in the math and reading regular assessment or alternate
assessment. Enrollment data indicated that the following percentage of
children with disabilities participated in the regular and alternate
math assessment: (1) fourth grade math, 97.9 percent and fourth grade
reading, 97.4 percent; (2) seventh grade math, 95.7 percent and seventh
grade reading, 95.5 percent; and (3) tenth grade math, 93.8 percent and
tenth grade reading, 87.8 percent. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the
State's updated data in this area in the SPP.

On page 66 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and information
regarding performance on statewide and district-wide assessments
indicating that on the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL)
and the Washington Alternate Assessment System (WAAS), in all content
areas at grades four, seven, and ten, children with disabilities made
progress in meeting proficient or advanced achievement standards. On the
WAAS, the percentage of students with significant disabilities meeting
the alternate achievement standard increased approximately 25 percent to
50 percent in each grade level in all content areas. OSEP appreciates
the State's efforts in this area and looks forward to reviewing data and
information demonstrating continued improvement in this area in the SPP.

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

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide data and
information on the implementation of strategies and the resulting data
demonstrating improvement in: (1) children with disabilities educated
with nondisabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate; and (2)
placement decisions for preschool children being made on an individual
basis in accordance with applicable regulations. On page 87 of the FFY
2003 APR, Washington included data and information regarding educating
all children with disabilities with nondisabled peers to the maximum
extent appropriate, indicating that children aged 3 to 5 in the State
were most often served in early childhood special education settings
(57.69%). Children with disabilities aged 6 to 21 were comparable to
national trend data and were most often served in the regular classroom
(47.13%). State monitoring data indicated that only four percent of the
districts had a finding in LRE, and LRE was not an issue in citizen
complaints or due process hearings. State data for children aged 3 to 5
indicated that, statewide, districts that received an inclusion grant
had a higher percentage (37%) of children with disabilities being served
in typical early childhood settings than districts without an inclusion
grant (19.4%). OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and
looks forward to reviewing data and information demonstrating continued
improvement in this area in the SPP.

OSEP is unable to determine whether OSPI made progress in ensuring that
placement decisions for preschool children were made on an individual
basis in accordance with applicable regulations since required data were
not included in the FFY 2003 APR. The State reported only that there was
no change in the percentages of students receiving services in typical
early childhood settings, and attributed this to the lack of universal
pre-kindergarten in Washington and lack of available funding to keep
pace with demands for services, coupled with increased program costs
resulting in a reduced number of program slots. OSPI must provide the
data required by OSEP's February 2005 letter in the SPP. OSEP will
review this information and determine what further action, if any, is
required.

Washington should note that preschool LRE (children with disabilities
aged three through five) is a separate indicator in the SPP due December
2, 2005. In preparation for the submission of the SPP on December 2,
2005, the State should carefully consider its current data collection
against the requirements related to this indicator in the SPP packet to
ensure that data will be responsive to those requirements.

[Preschool performance outcomes]{.underline}

OSEP's February 2005 letter required the State to provide data and
information on the implementation of strategies and the resulting data
demonstrating improvement in early language and communication,
pre-reading, and social-emotional skills of preschool children with
disabilities, including documentation of data, targets for improved
performance and strategies to achieve those targets, or a plan to
collect the data, including a detailed timeline of the activities
necessary to implement the plan. On page 90 of the FFY 2003 APR, the
State provided a plan to collect data and information in this area as
follows: development of benchmarks that will provide language and
communication, pre-reading, and social and emotional development
learning expectations to assist in curriculum development and training.
The State was also developing an Early Childhood Assessment Manual to
serve as a complement to State benchmarks. The SPP instructions
establish a new indicator in this area, for which States must provide
baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007. Absence of this
information at that time will be considered in OSEP's annual
determination on the status of the State's performance and compliance
required under §616(d) of the IDEA. The State should carefully review
the instructions to the SPP in developing its plans for this collection.

***Secondary Transition***

OSEP's February 2005 response letter to Washington's 2002 APR required
the State to include data and analysis demonstrating progress toward
compliance in ensuring that students with disabilities were invited to
IEP meetings when a purpose of the meeting was consideration of
transition services, and that representatives of other agencies that
were likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services, were routinely invited to IEP meetings (34 CFR §300.344(b)).
OSEP is unable to determine if the State made progress in this area
since required data were not included in the FFY 2003 APR. On page 96 of
the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data indicating that of 2,610 youth
and families that were contacted six months after graduation, 1,862 or
71 percent had agency linkages on their IEPs. Although the FFY 2003 APR
provided data that agency linkages were identified on the IEP, OSEP is
unable to determine if representatives of other agencies likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for transition services were invited
to the IEP meeting or if students were invited to IEP meetings.

Regulations at 34 CFR §300.344(b) require that the public agency invite
a student with a disability of any age to attend his or her
individualized education program (IEP) meeting if a purpose of the
meeting will be the consideration of transition services needs
(beginning no later than age 14) or transition services (beginning no
later than age 16) or both. Note that, effective July 1, 2005, IDEA 2004
no longer includes the requirements for students with disabilities
beginning at age 14. If the student does not attend the IEP meeting, the
public agency must take other steps to ensure that the student's
preferences and interests are considered. Data and information
describing compliance with these requirements may include: (1) a
description of policies, procedures and practices to ensure that public
agencies invite students with disabilities when transition service needs
or transition services are considered along with monitoring data
demonstrating implementation of those policies, procedures and
practices; (2) a description of policies, procedures and practices
describing actions to be taken by public agencies to consider students'
preferences and interests when they do not attend IEP meetings where
transition will be considered along with monitoring data demonstrating
implementation of these policies, procedures and practices; and (3) an
explanation for instances where public agencies did not appropriately
implement required policies, procedures and practices. Washington must
provide OSEP with documentation of compliance no later than March 30,
2006.

The SPP instructions establish new indicators on secondary transition
and post-school outcomes, for which States must provide baseline data in
the FFY 2005 APR due February 1, 2007. Washington should carefully
review the instructions to the SPP in developing its plans for these
collections. In the SPP due December 2, 2005, Washington must describe
how data are to be collected for this new indicator so that Washington
will be able to report baseline data and targets in the FFY 2005 APR due
February 1, 2007. OSEP looks forward to reviewing this information in
the SPP.

## 

## Conclusion

## 

In the SPP, due December 2, 2005, Washington must submit data and
analysis documenting progress toward compliance regarding the following:

1.  Timely correction of noncompliance involving individual students (20
    U.S.C. §1232d and 34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii));

2.  Due process hearing decisions are issued within required timelines
    (34 CFR §300.511); and

3.  Insuring that placement decisions for preschool children were made
    on an individual basis in accordance with applicable regulations
    since required data were not included in the FFY 2003 APR.

As noted above, Washington must provide documentation of compliance no
later than March 30, 2006, on the following:

1.  Complaint decisions are issued within timelines (34 CFR
    §300.661(a)(4) and (b));

2.  Decisions in due process hearings are issued no later than 45 days
    after the receipt of a request for a hearing, unless the hearing
    officer grants a specific extension of time, at the request of
    either party (34 CFR §300.511);

3.  Children in need of specially-designed instruction for behavior
    disorders receive required services despite personnel shortages, and
    children in need of psychological counseling services are receiving
    those services in accordance with their IEPs, at no cost to the
    parents (34 CFR §300.300(a)(3)); and

4.  Students with disabilities are invited to IEP meetings when the
    purpose of the meeting is the consideration of transition services,
    and that representatives of other agencies that are likely to be
    responsible for providing or paying for transition services are
    routinely invited to IEP meetings (34 CFR §300.344(b)).

IDEA 2004, §616, requires each State to submit a State Performance Plan
(SPP) that measures performance on monitoring priorities and indicators
established by the Department. These priorities and indicators are, for
the most part, similar to clusters and probes in the APR. OSEP
encourages the State to carefully consider the comments in this letter
as it prepares its SPP due December 2, 2005.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State and looks forward to collaborating
with you as you continue to improve results for children and youth with
disabilities and their families. If you have questions, please contact
Dr. Al Jones at (202) 245-7394.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/Troy R. Justesen

###### Troy R. Justesen

> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Dr. Douglas Gill

[^1]: The State reported different numbers, however, in Attachment 1,
    but provided no explanation for the differences.

[^2]: Evidence of compliance must include disaggregated data indicating
    provision of specially designed instruction for behavior, physical
    therapy and/or occupational therapy as required on the child's IEP.