# Table B -- South Dakota Part B

# Previously Identified Issues 

+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **Issue**       | **State         | **OSEP          | **Required      |
|                 | Submission**    | Analysis**      | Action**        |
+=================+=================+=================+=================+
| **[SPP          | In the December | The State       | As noted in     |
| Indicator       | 8, 2005 letter  | reported data   | Table A, the    |
| 15              | to OSEP, South  | and information | timeliness of   |
| ]{.underline}** | Dakota reported | demonstrating   | correction of   |
| -- OSEP's       | that the State  | that it         | noncompliance   |
| October 18,     | Educational     | monitors in the | is addressed in |
| 2005 FFY 2003   | Agency made one | area of ESY and | the State's     |
| Annual          | finding of      | that the one    | reporting under |
| Performance     | noncompliance   | finding of      | Indicator 15.   |
| Report (APR)    | in the area of  | noncompliance   | Because the     |
| response letter | ESY out of a    | with 34 CFR     | State reported  |
| required South  | total of 306    | §300.309. was   | correction of   |
| Dakota to       | findings of     | corrected.      | identified      |
| report, within  | noncompliance   | However, OSEP   | noncompliance   |
| 60 days of the  | for the         | could not       | in the area of  |
| date of the     | 2003-2004       | determine the   | ESY, no further |
| letter, whether | monitoring      | timeliness of   | action is       |
| the State       | year. The State | the correction. | required that   |
| monitoring      | reported that   | As noted in     | is specifically |
| system examined | the one finding | Table A, timely | related to ESY. |
| the extent to   | of              | correction of   | OSEP            |
| which ESY       | noncompliance   | noncompliance   | appreciates the |
| requirements of | with ESY        | is an area of   | State's efforts |
| 34 CFR §300.309 | requirements    | newly           | in ensuring     |
| were met,       | was corrected   | identified      | compliance with |
| whether any     | "within 6       | noncompliance   | this            |
| noncompliance   | months of       | on which the    | requirement.    |
| regarding the   | notification of | State will      | OSEP looks      |
| ESY             | the approved    | continue to     | forward to      |
| requirements    | Improvement     | report.         | reviewing data  |
| was identified  | Plan Progress   |                 | in the APR, due |
| through         | Report."        |                 | February 1,     |
| monitoring,     |                 |                 | 2007,           |
| complaint       |                 |                 | demonstrating   |
| investigation,  |                 |                 | compliance in   |
| or hearings,    |                 |                 | the area of     |
| and whether     |                 |                 | timely          |
| correction      |                 |                 | correction of   |
| occurred for    |                 |                 | all findings of |
| any             |                 |                 | noncompliance.  |
| noncompliance   |                 |                 |                 |
| identified.     |                 |                 |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **[SPP          | In the December | In its December | As noted in     |
| Indicator       | 8, 2005 letter  | 8, 2005 letter, | Table A, the    |
| 15]{            | to OSEP, South  | South Dakota    | timeliness of   |
| .underline}** - | Dakota          | reported 21     | correction of   |
| OSEP's October  | submitted an    | findings of     | noncompliance   |
| 18, 2005 FFY    | examination of  | noncompliance   | is addressed in |
| 2003 Annual     | data and        | for FFY         | the State's     |
| Performance     | information     | 2003-2004 in    | reporting under |
| Report (APR)    | demonstrating   | the area of     | Indicator 15.   |
| response letter | correction of   | parent input    | The State       |
| required South  | the identified  | into the        | reported data   |
| Dakota to       | noncompliance   | evaluation      | showing full    |
| report, within  | regarding 34    | progress and    | correction of   |
| 60 days of the  | CFR §§300.505   | nine findings   | the             |
| date of the     | and 300.523(b)  | of              | previo          |
| letter, data    | concerning      | noncompliance   | usly-identified |
| and information | parent consent  | for FFY         | noncompliance   |
| demonstrating   | and input in    | 2003-2004 in    | with the        |
| correction of   | the evaluation  | the area of     | requirements    |
| the identified  | process.        | parent consent  | regarding       |
| noncompliance   |                 | to evaluate.    | parent input    |
| regarding 34    |                 | The State       | into the        |
| CFR §§300.505   |                 | reported that   | evaluation      |
| and 300.532(b)  |                 | all of the      | process (34 CFR |
| concerning      |                 | findings of     | §300.505) and   |
| parent consent  |                 | noncompliance   | parent consent  |
| and input in    |                 | were corrected. | to evaluate (34 |
| the evaluation  |                 | However, the    | CFR             |
| process.        |                 | timelines for   | §300.523(b)).   |
|                 |                 | correction were |                 |
|                 |                 | not based upon  | Based upon this |
|                 |                 | the date of     | report of       |
|                 |                 | identification  | correction, no  |
|                 |                 | of the          | further action  |
|                 |                 | noncompliance.  | is required     |
|                 |                 | As noted in     | related to      |
|                 |                 | Table A, timely | parent input    |
|                 |                 | correction of   | into the        |
|                 |                 | noncompliance   | evaluation      |
|                 |                 | is an area of   | process (34 CFR |
|                 |                 | newly           | §300.505) and   |
|                 |                 | identified      | parent consent  |
|                 |                 | noncompliance   | to evaluate (34 |
|                 |                 | on which the    | CFR             |
|                 |                 | State will      | §300.523(b)).   |
|                 |                 | continue to     | OSEP            |
|                 |                 | report.         | appreciates the |
|                 |                 |                 | State's efforts |
|                 |                 |                 | in ensuring     |
|                 |                 |                 | compliance with |
|                 |                 |                 | these           |
|                 |                 |                 | requirements.   |
|                 |                 |                 | OSEP looks      |
|                 |                 |                 | forward to      |
|                 |                 |                 | reviewing data  |
|                 |                 |                 | in the APR, due |
|                 |                 |                 | February 1,     |
|                 |                 |                 | 2007,           |
|                 |                 |                 | demonstrating   |
|                 |                 |                 | compliance in   |
|                 |                 |                 | the area of     |
|                 |                 |                 | timely          |
|                 |                 |                 | correction of   |
|                 |                 |                 | all findings of |
|                 |                 |                 | noncompliance.  |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+
| **SPP Indicator | In its November | On page 23,     | The State must  |
| #4** -- OSEP's  | 19, 2005 letter | South Dakota    | ensure that     |
| October 18,     | to OSEP, the    | reported that   | this            |
| 2005 FFY 2003   | State set out a | 1.80% of the    | noncompliance   |
| Annual          | definition of   | districts had a | is corrected    |
| Performance     | significant     | suspension rate | and include     |
| Report (APR)    | discrepancy     | of greater than | documentation   |
| response letter | that was based  | 5% of their     | in the APR, due |
| required South  | on a comparison | population of   | February 1,     |
| Dakota to       | of total        | special         | 2007, that      |
| report in the   | numbers of      | education       | demonstrates    |
| SPP data and    | long-term       | students for    | compliance with |
| analysis        | suspensions and | FFY 2004. On    | this            |
| demonstrating   | expulsions. On  | page 22, OSEP   | requirement.    |
| that it has     | pages 22-24 of  | acknowledges    |                 |
| been meeting    | its SPP         | the State's new |                 |
| the             | submission,     | definition of   |                 |
| requirements at | South Dakota    | significant     |                 |
| 34 CFR          | reported that,  | discrepancy as  |                 |
| §300.146(b)     | for federal     | consistent with |                 |
| that SDDOE      | fiscal year     | the federal     |                 |
| examines data   | (FFY) 2004, it  | requirement     |                 |
| to determine if | had established | that rates, not |                 |
| significant     | a new           | total number of |                 |
| discrepancies   | definition of   | incidences, be  |                 |
| are occurring   | significant     | compared.       |                 |
| in the rate of  | discrepancy     | However, OSEP   |                 |
| long-term       | that compares   | concludes that  |                 |
| suspensions and | rates of        | the State's     |                 |
| expulsions of   | students with   | failure to      |                 |
| children with   | disabilities    | conduct reviews |                 |
| disabilities:   | with long-term  | constitutes     |                 |
| (1) among LEAs  | suspensions or  | noncompliance.  |                 |
| in the State;   | expulsions. The | The requirement |                 |
| or (2) compared | State also      | at Section      |                 |
| to the rates    | reported that   | 612(a)(22) that |                 |
| for children    | the "Special    | States review   |                 |
| without         | Education       | policies,       |                 |
| disabilities    | Programs will   | procedures and  |                 |
| within the      | be reviewing    | practices in    |                 |
| agencies. If    | and, if         | agencies with   |                 |
| the             | appropriate     | significant     |                 |
| discrepancies   | revising its    | discrepancies   |                 |
| are occurring,  | policies,       | was enacted in  |                 |
| that SDDOE      | procedures and  | 1997 and        |                 |
| reviews and, if | practices to    | retained in the |                 |
| appropriate,    | comply with the | 2004 IDEA.      |                 |
| revises (or     | final           | Therefore, this |                 |
| requires the    | regulations of  | is not a new    |                 |
| affected State  | IDEA 2004."     | requirement for |                 |
| agency or LEA   |                 | States. In      |                 |
| to revise) its  |                 | establishing    |                 |
| policies,       |                 | its eligibility |                 |
| procedures and  |                 | under Part B,   |                 |
| practices       |                 | South Dakota    |                 |
| relating to the |                 | has provided    |                 |
| development and |                 | the Department  |                 |
| implementation  |                 | with assurances |                 |
| of IEPs, the    |                 | for FFY 2004    |                 |
| use of          |                 | and FFY 2005,   |                 |
| behavioral      |                 | that it would   |                 |
| interventions   |                 | implement the   |                 |
| and procedural  |                 | requirements of |                 |
| safeguards, to  |                 | Part B.         |                 |
| ensure that     |                 | Therefore, it   |                 |
| these policies, |                 | is not          |                 |
| procedures and  |                 | appropriate for |                 |
| practices       |                 | South Dakota to |                 |
| comply with     |                 | await final     |                 |
| IDEA; or, in    |                 | regulations in  |                 |
| the alternative |                 | order to meet   |                 |
| a plan,         |                 | the             |                 |
| including       |                 | requirements of |                 |
| strategies,     |                 | section         |                 |
| proposed        |                 | 612(a)(22) for  |                 |
| evidence of     |                 | either FFY 2004 |                 |
| change, targets |                 | or FFY 2005.    |                 |
| and timelines   |                 | Based upon      |                 |
| designed to     |                 | this, OSEP      |                 |
| ensure          |                 | finds that      |                 |
| correction of   |                 | South Dakota is |                 |
| the             |                 | not in          |                 |
| noncompliance   |                 | compliance with |                 |
| with 34 CFR     |                 | section         |                 |
| §300.146(b) as  |                 | 612(a)(22) and  |                 |
| soon as         |                 | directs the     |                 |
| possible and    |                 | State to        |                 |
| not more than   |                 | conduct the     |                 |
| one year after  |                 | required        |                 |
| OSEP accepts    |                 | reviews when it |                 |
| the plan.       |                 | identifies      |                 |
|                 |                 | significant     |                 |
|                 |                 | discrepancies.  |                 |
+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+-----------------+