# Enclosure E

# Special Conditions

# 1. Basis for Requiring Special Conditions

Pursuant to 34 CFR §80.12, the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) is imposing Special Conditions on the District of Columbia's
(DCPS) Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2007 grant awards under Part B of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B), related to the
State's failure to:

1)  [Provide timely initial evaluations and reevaluations]{.underline}

    a.  An initial evaluation that meets the requirements of section
        614(a)(1), (b) and (c) of Part B of the IDEA and 34 CFR
        §300.301(c)(1) must be completed for all children with
        disabilities, and an appropriate placement must be made within
        the maximum number of days established by the State's policy.
        [^1] See also, section 612(a)(7) of IDEA. According to data
        submitted by DCPS under the [FFY 2006 Special
        Conditions]{.underline}, DCPS had not achieved compliance with
        the requirement of ensuring that all initial evaluations were
        completed and placements made in a timely manner. At the end of
        the final reporting period for FFY 2006, 364 initial evaluations
        and placements had not been completed in a timely manner, with
        an average number of overdue days of 53. [^2] This represents an
        increase of 19 from the number of initial evaluations and
        placements that had not been completed in a timely manner at the
        end of the final reporting period for FFY 2005 and a decrease of
        three days in the average number of overdue days.

> DCPS reports that 41 percent of initial evaluations and placements
> were provided within the required timeline to children with
> disabilities whose initial evaluation deadlines fell within the final
> reporting period. Although there has been an increase in the percent
> of initial evaluations completed within the required timeline for
> children with disabilities whose initial evaluation deadlines fell
> within the final reporting period, the State continues to demonstrate
> noncompliance with the requirement of ensuring that all initial
> evaluations are completed within the State-established timeline.
>
> Based upon the above, OSEP concludes the State did not satisfy this
> [Special Condition]{.underline}.
>
> b\. A reevaluation that meets the requirements of section 614(a)(2),
> (b), and (c) of Part B of the IDEA and 34 CFR §300.303 must be
> completed for each child with a disability no later than 36 months
> after the date on which the previous evaluation or reevaluation was
> completed, unless the parent and the local educational agency agree
> that a reevaluation is unnecessary. [^3] According to data submitted
> by DCPS under the [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}, DCPS had
> not achieved compliance with the requirement of ensuring that all
> reevaluations of children with disabilities were conducted in a timely
> manner. At the end of the final reporting period for FFY 2006, 2,257
> reevaluations had not been conducted in a timely manner, with an
> average number of overdue days of 67. [^4] DCPS reports that 41
> percent of triennial reevaluations were provided within the required
> timeline to children with disabilities whose reevaluation deadlines
> fell during the final reporting period.[^5]
>
> DCPS did not provide a description of the strategies it is
> implementing to reduce the number of overdue initial evaluations and
> placements and/or reevaluations, and, if there was no progress in
> reducing the number of overdue initial evaluations and placements
> and/or reevaluations, an explanation for this lack of progress and a
> reevaluation of the procedures it is implementing to reduce the number
> of overdue initial evaluations and placements and/or reevaluations,
>
> Based upon the above, OSEP concludes the State did not satisfy this
> [Special Condition]{.underline}.

2)  [Implement due process hearing decisions in a timely
    manner]{.underline}

> Independent hearing officer determinations must be implemented within
> the time frame prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no
> time frame prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable time
> frame set by DCPS, as required by section 615(f) and (i) of Part B of
> the IDEA. According to data submitted by DCPS under the [FFY 2006
> Special Conditions]{.underline}, DCPS had not achieved compliance with
> the requirement of ensuring that all due process hearing decisions
> were implemented in a timely manner. At the end of the final reporting
> period under the [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}, 1,221
> hearing decisions have not been implemented in a timely manner. [^6]
> While this represents a decrease of 67 from the number of hearing
> decisions that had not been implemented in a timely manner at the end
> of the final reporting period for FFY 2005, DCPS is unable to report
> the FFY 2006 data on the percent of hearing officer determinations
> that were implemented in a timely manner during the reporting period
> and reported 0%.
>
> Other than stating that the number of hearing requests has decreased,
> DCPS did not provide a description of the strategies it is
> implementing to reduce the number of children whose hearing officer
> determinations are not implemented in a timely manner, and did not
> fully address any remaining barriers to the timely implementation of
> hearing officer decisions (those with a time frame set by the hearing
> officer and those without a time frame set by the hearing officer) and
> the steps being taken to remove those barriers.

Based upon the above, OSEP concludes the State did not satisfy this
[Special Condition]{.underline}.

3)  [Ensure placement in the least restrictive environment]{.underline}

All children with disabilities must be placed in the least restrictive
environment appropriate to their individual needs, as required by
section 612(a)(5)(A) of Part B of the IDEA and 34 CFR §§300.114 through
300.120 (formerly 34 CFR §§300.550 through 300.556). During its March
26, 2001 compliance monitoring review of DCPS, OSEP collected data to
determine whether DCPS was ensuring that all children with disabilities
were placed in the least restrictive environment. OSEP determined that
decisions regarding the educational placement of children with
disabilities were not based on the individual needs of the child, but
rather on other factors. Personnel reported that placement decisions
were affected by the lack of modifications and accommodations available
in the regular class setting and the limited capacity of DCPS to serve
children with disabilities along each point of the continuum of
alternative placements. OSEP found that DCPS was not ensuring that
children with disabilities are placed in the least restrictive
environment appropriate to their needs.

> With the implementation of DCPS' monitoring system, OSEP required, in
> the [FFY 2004 Special Conditions]{.underline}, that DCPS provide the
> results of its monitoring efforts, highlighting any findings and
> required corrective actions related to placement of children with
> disabilities in the least restrictive environment, including
> information obtained from record reviews and staff and parent
> interviews. During FFY 2004, DCPS provided no monitoring data or other
> documentation to OSEP to demonstrate students with disabilities are
> placed in the least restrictive environment consistent with the
> requirements.
>
> Under the [FFY 2005 Special Conditions]{.underline}, DCPS was required
> to provide OSEP with monitoring reports issued as a result of the
> first cyclical monitoring of the High School and Middle/Junior High
> School divisions and monitoring data for all elementary schools
> monitored through the Spring 2005, highlighting any findings and
> corrective action plans related to placement of children with
> disabilities in the least restrictive environment. In the [FFY 2005
> Special Conditions]{.underline} OSEP stated that the monitoring
> reports should include the results of interviews with members of the
> placement teams and reviews of the individualized education programs
> of children with disabilities who do not participate for all, or part
> of, the day in the regular class in order to determine if the
> placement decisions were made consistent with the requirements at 34
> CFR §§300.114 through 300.120. In addition, DCPS was to report on any
> follow-up activities it had carried out to ensure the corrective
> action plans resulted in the correction of noncompliance related to
> implementation of least restrictive environment requirements.
>
> DCPS' submissions to OSEP during the FFY 2005 reporting period did not
> provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the State monitored
> its local educational agencies for compliance with each of the least
> restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA. Further, in those
> instances when the State did identify noncompliance, there was no
> evidence that the State ordered corrective measures to ensure
> correction of noncompliance related to the least restrictive
> environment requirements. As a result, OSEP determined that although
> DCPS initiated a process to monitor its local educational agencies to
> ensure placement of children with disabilities in the least
> restrictive environment, the State had not demonstrated it was fully
> meeting its responsibilities under 34 CFR §§300.114 through 300.120
> and did not satisfy the [Special Conditions]{.underline} imposed on
> DCPS' FFY 2005 grant award.
>
> Under the [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}, the State was
> required to provide two progress reports to the Department. The first
> report, due February 1, 2007, required DCPS, as part of its response
> to Indicator 15 in the FFY 2005 APR, to submit data that included the
> number of findings of noncompliance identified in its December 8, 2005
> monitoring reports on the least restrictive environment requirements
> and the number and percent of those findings that were corrected
> within one year of identification. For any findings of noncompliance
> related to the implementation of the least restrictive environment
> requirements that were not corrected by December 8, 2006, the State
> was required to provide a description of any actions that the State
> has taken, including enforcement actions, to ensure correction of the
> finding(s). The State was also required to provide an explanation of
> the process, including standards, it used to calculate the levels of
> compliance reported in the June 26, 2006 Addendum to the State's final
> [FFY 2005 Special Conditions]{.underline} progress report related to
> implementation of the least restrictive requirements at section
> 612(a)(5)(a) of Part B of the IDEA and 34 CFR §§300.114 through
> 300.120. Additionally, the [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}
> required DCPS to submit copies of monitoring reports issued since July
> 1, 2006 that include the State's findings as to whether the
> educational placement decisions were made consistent with the least
> restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA at 34 CFR §§300.114
> through 300.120.
>
> In its June 15, 2007 correspondence OSEP responded to the State's [FFY
> 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} progress report, dated February
> 1, 2007. OSEP noted that the State reported inconsistent information
> regarding the number of findings made related to implementation of the
> least restrictive environment requirements. The State reported 7
> findings of noncompliance were made in the High School and
> Middle/Junior High School divisions. However, the State also reported
> that 8 of 9 findings related to the least restrictive environment
> provisions were corrected within one year of identification for a
> timely correction rate of 89%. While the State indicated that
> "technical assistance" was provided, it did not provide any further
> information regarding any actions, including enforcement actions,
> taken to ensure correction of uncorrected noncompliance. The State did
> not provide an explanation of the process, including standards, it
> used to calculate the levels of compliance reported in the June 27,
> 2006 Addendum to the State's June 16, 2006 [FFY 2005 Special
> Conditions]{.underline} final progress report related to
> implementation of the LRE requirements in the High and Middle/Junior
> High School divisions as required by the [FFY 2006 Special
> Conditions]{.underline}.
>
> With its February 1, 2007 APR, the State provided copies of monitoring
> reports for the Elementary School division and reports for nine
> charter schools (four of the charter schools are LEA charters; the
> remaining five charter schools are public schools of DCPS for IDEA
> purposes). Based upon the information provided in those reports, OSEP
> concluded that the State does not appear to have a clear understanding
> of the least restrictive provisions that must be monitored, and the
> results documented, in order to meet its responsibilities under
> section 612(a)(5)(A) of the IDEA and 34 CFR §§300.114 through 300.120
> and to satisfy this [Special Condition]{.underline}. For example, the
> findings of noncompliance DCPS identified as being related to the
> least restrictive environment provisions of the IDEA do not reflect
> the legal requirements of 34 CFR §§300.114 through 300.120.
>
> The [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} required a second
> progress report, due June 1, 2007, in which DCPS was required to
> provide updated information on the data provided in the State's
> response to Indicator 15 in the FFY 2005 APR on the number and percent
> of findings of noncompliance the State identified in the December 8,
> 2005 monitoring reports on implementation of least restrictive
> environment requirements that were corrected since the February 1,
> 2007 Progress Report. For any findings of noncompliance related to the
> implementation of the least restrictive environment requirements that
> remained uncorrected from the December 8, 2005 monitoring reports, the
> State was required to provide a description of any actions that the
> State has taken, including enforcement actions, to ensure correction
> of the finding(s) and the results of the State's analysis of factors
> that contributed to the results of any continuing noncompliance, and
> the strategies the State implemented to address those.
>
> The [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} required DCPS to submit
> any monitoring reports issued since the February 1, 2007 Progress
> Report, that include the State's findings as to whether educational
> placement decisions were made consistent with the least restrictive
> environment provisions of the IDEA at 34 CFR §§300.114 through
> 300.120. The State was also required to provide an update on the
> number of findings of noncompliance related to the least restrictive
> environment requirements made in all of the monitoring reports issued
> after July 1, 2006, the corrective actions imposed, the number and
> percent of those findings that were corrected, and the status of any
> remaining corrective actions, including any actions undertaken by DCPS
> to ensure corrective actions were implemented and the noncompliance
> corrected within one year of identification.
>
> DCPS' [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report dated
> June 1, 2007, included a copy of two documents: "*MDT Notes
> Guidelines*" and "*Placement Guidelines*". However, the State did not
> provide an explanation of how these documents support the State's
> efforts to ensure compliance with IDEA's least restrictive environment
> requirements and whether these documents have been used and the
> results of the State's efforts.
>
> DCPS did not provide any updated data since its February 1, 2007 [FFY
> 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report regarding actions
> taken to ensure compliance with the least restrictive environment
> requirements, including correction of the remaining finding(s) of
> noncompliance in the December 8, 2005 monitoring reports or steps
> taken to address any continuing noncompliance. The State did not
> submit any additional monitoring reports or state whether other
> monitoring activities have been conducted to ensure local educational
> agencies comply with the least restrictive environment provisions of
> the IDEA.
>
> Section 616(a)(3) of the IDEA and 34 CFR §300.600(d) require the
> Department to monitor States and require each State to monitor the
> local educational agencies located in the State to adequately measure
> performance in certain priority areas, including the provision of a
> free appropriate public education in the least restrictive
> environment. In addition, the regulations at 34 CFR §§300.119 and
> 300.120 require States to carry out technical assistance, training,
> and monitoring activities to ensure each public agency implements the
> least restrictive environment requirements at 34 CFR §300.114.
> Further, if there is evidence that a public agency makes educational
> placements that are inconsistent with the least restrictive
> environment requirements at 34 CFR §300.114, the State must review the
> public agency's justification for its actions and assist in planning
> and implementing any necessary corrective action.
>
> DCPS has demonstrated longstanding noncompliance related to ensuring
> the education of students with disabilities in the least restrictive
> environment consistent with federal requirements. Our review of the
> State's monitoring reports for the nine charter schools and High,
> Middle/Junior High and Elementary Schools divisions indicates the
> monitoring activities carried out by DCPS do not address whether
> placement decisions are made consistent with the least restrictive
> environment requirements in 34 CFR §300.114. Therefore, OSEP concludes
> DCPS has not demonstrated that it monitors its local educational
> agencies to ensure compliance with the least restrictive environment
> requirements in 34 CFR §300.114 in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.600
> and 300.120 and has not met this [Special Condition]{.underline}. We
> strongly recommend that DCPS continue to utilize technical assistance
> from the Mid-South Regional Resource Center that is directed toward
> improving the State's effectiveness in monitoring the State's local
> educational agencies to ensure compliance with the least restrictive
> environment provisions of the IDEA.

4)  [Identify and correct noncompliance]{.underline}

Section 612(a)(11) of Part B and 34 CFR §300.149 require States to
ensure that each educational program for children with disabilities
administered within the State is under the general supervision of
individuals responsible for educational programs for children with
disabilities in the State education agency. Section 616(a)(1)(C) of Part
B requires States to monitor implementation of Part B by local
educational agencies. The State must have in effect policies and
procedures to ensure that it complies with the monitoring and
enforcement requirements in 34 CFR §§300.600 through 300.602 and 300.606
through 300.608. See also 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3).

OSEP conducted a review in the District of Columbia, ending the week of
March 26, 2001, for the purpose of assessing compliance in the
implementation of the IDEA and assisting DCPS in developing strategies
to improve results for children with disabilities. OSEP's monitoring
report issued on June 18, 2002 identified several areas of
noncompliance, including DCPS' failure to exercise general supervisory
responsibility by identifying deficiencies under the IDEA and ensuring
that they are corrected in a timely manner, as required at 34 CFR
§300.149 and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3). Because DCPS continued to
demonstrate noncompliance with these requirements, the Department
imposed [Special Conditions]{.underline} on the State's FFY 2005 grant
award under Part B.

> Under the [FFY 2005 Special Conditions]{.underline}, OSEP required
> DCPS to submit the monitoring report(s) issued as a result of its
> first cyclical monitoring of the High School and Middle/Junior High
> School divisions, and monitoring data for all elementary schools,
> including charter schools that are public schools of DCPS, and charter
> schools established as local educational agencies. OSEP required that
> the documentation include corrective actions imposed, and activities
> undertaken by DCPS to ensure those corrective actions were implemented
> and identified noncompliance had been corrected within one year of
> identification. DCPS was also required to report on the mechanisms
> that it had in place to address persistent noncompliance (sanctions)
> and how and when they were imposed.

With its quarterly report submitted to OSEP on October 28, 2005, DCPS
provided the monitoring reports for the High School and Middle/Junior
High School divisions. DCPS subsequently informed OSEP that these
reports were issued to the High School and Middle/Junior High School
divisions on December 8, 2005. DCPS provided OSEP with the corrective
action measures to be taken to correct the noncompliance identified in
the two reports but provided no documentation during FFY 2005 that any
of the findings of noncompliance identified in the monitoring reports
were corrected.

In the March 30, 2006 response to DCPS' submission of its State
Performance Plan, OSEP stated that although DCPS' monitoring system had
positive components with the potential to improve compliance, DCPS has
not effectively implemented its system so that noncompliance is
identified and then corrected within a reasonable period of time, not to
exceed one year from the date of identification. OSEP also expressed
concern that: (1) some of the findings contained within DCPS' December
2005 monitoring reports did not accurately reflect the legal
requirements being monitored; (2) areas identified as effective and
promising in practice should have been identified as areas of
noncompliance under the IDEA; and, (3) there was no evidence DCPS
included public charter high or middle/junior high schools that elect to
operate as public schools within DCPS for the purposes of Part B of the
IDEA.

> DCPS' submissions to OSEP during the FFY 2005 reporting period did not
> provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the State
> effectively identified noncompliance and required corrective actions
> to ensure the correction of noncompliance consistent with the
> requirements at section 612(a)(11) and 616(a)(1)(C) of the IDEA, 34
> CFR §§300.149 and 300.600, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3). Therefore, OSEP
> concluded that DCPS did not meet the [Special Conditions]{.underline}
> imposed on the FFY 2005 grant award.
>
> Under the [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}, the State was
> required to provide OSEP with two progress reports. In the first
> progress report, as part of its response to Indicator 15 in the FFY
> 2005 APR, due February 1, 2007, DCPS was required to submit data to
> OSEP that include the number of findings of noncompliance identified
> in the State's December 8, 2005 monitoring reports, and the number of
> corrections the State verified were completed as soon as possible but
> in no case later than one year from identification. For any findings
> of noncompliance identified in the December 8, 2005 monitoring reports
> that were not corrected by December 8, 2006, DCPS was required to
> provide a description of the actions that the State had taken,
> including enforcement actions, to ensure correction of the finding(s).
>
> DCPS was also required to provide to OSEP the monitoring reports
> issued since July 1, 2006. DCPS was to report the number of findings
> of noncompliance made in monitoring reports issued after July 1, 2006,
> the corrective actions imposed, the number and percent of those
> findings that have been corrected, and the status of any remaining
> corrective actions, including any actions undertaken by DCPS to ensure
> implementation of those corrective actions and correction of the
> noncompliance within one year of identification.
>
> In its June 15, 2007 correspondence OSEP responded to the State's [FFY
> 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report, dated February
> 1, 2007. Based upon the data the State reported in its "General
> Supervision Response" OSEP concluded the State's overall rate of
> correction of noncompliance identified in the December 8, 2005
> monitoring reports within one year of identification is 78.5%. In its
> February 1, 2007 progress report, the State did not describe any
> actions, including enforcement actions, it had taken to ensure
> correction of remaining noncompliance identified in those monitoring
> reports.
>
> The State submitted the monitoring reports for the Elementary Schools
> Division, dated July 10, 2006 and nine charter schools, dated July 12,
> 2006,[^7] and reported: (1) the number of findings of noncompliance
> made in these reports; (2) that corrective action plans have been
> received; and (3) the one year time frame for correction had not yet
> expired. No findings of noncompliance identified since July 1, 2006
> were reported as having been corrected.
>
> In OSEP's June 15, 2007 correspondence, the State was informed that
> OSEP remains concerned that: (1) LEAs should receive timely
> notification of noncompliance identified by the State through
> monitoring activities or other components of the State's system of
> general supervision; (2) some findings in the State's monitoring
> reports do not accurately reflect the legal requirements being
> monitored; (3) the State continues to highlight as "significant
> compliance," areas that should have been identified as noncompliance
> under the IDEA; and (4) the monitoring reports include conclusions
> that are not supported by the reported data.
>
> For the second progress report, due June 1, 2007, DCPS was required to
> provide updated information on the data reported in the State's
> response to Indicator 15 in the FFY 2005 APR on the number and percent
> of findings of noncompliance identified in the State's December 8,
> 2005 monitoring reports that have been corrected since the February 1,
> 2007 [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report. For
> any findings of noncompliance identified in the December 8, 2005
> monitoring reports that remained uncorrected, DCPS was required to
> provide a description of the actions that the State has taken,
> including enforcement actions, to ensure correction of the finding(s).

DCPS was also required to provide an update on the number of findings of
noncompliance made in all of the monitoring reports issued after July 1,
2006, the corrective actions imposed, the number and percent of those
findings that have been corrected, and the status of any remaining
corrective actions, including any actions undertaken by DCPS to ensure
those corrective actions are being implemented and the noncompliance
will be corrected within one year of identification.

> DCPS did not provide the required updated data regarding correction of
> any remaining uncorrected findings identified in the December 8, 2005
> monitoring reports nor describe actions, including enforcement
> actions, taken to address any continuing noncompliance as required by
> the [Special Conditions]{.underline}. Moreover, DCPS did not provide
> any response to this [Special Condition]{.underline} in its June 1,
> 2007 Progress Report. Therefore, OSEP concludes DCPS has not
> demonstrated that it identifies and corrects noncompliance in
> accordance with the requirements in section 612(a)(11) and 616(a) of
> IDEA, 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3), and 34 CFR §§300.149 and 300.600, and has
> not met this [Special Condition.]{.underline}

2\. **Nature of the Special Conditions**

> The State must, pursuant to these [Special Conditions,]{.underline}
> provide two Progress Reports, the first with the FFY 2006 Annual
> Performance Report (APR) that it will submit by February 1, 2008, and
> the second by June 1, 2008, that address the following areas of
> noncompliance:

A. [Initial Evaluations and Reevaluations]{.underline}

In each progress report, DCPS must report the following:

1\. Initial Evaluations

(a) the number of children who, as of the end of the previous reporting
    period,

> had been referred for, but not provided a timely initial evaluation
> and placement;

(b) the number of children referred for initial evaluation and placement
    whose initial evaluation and placement became overdue during the
    reporting period;

(c) the number of children from (a) and (b) above, who were provided
    initial evaluations and placements during the reporting period;

(d) the number of children who had not been provided a timely initial
    evaluation and placement at the conclusion of the reporting period;
    and

(e) the percent of timely initial evaluations and placements provided to
    children with disabilities whose initial evaluation deadlines fell
    within the reporting period.

2\. Reevaluations

(a) the number of children who, as of the end of the previous reporting
    period, had not been provided a timely triennial reevaluation;

(b) the number of children whose triennial reevaluation became overdue
    during the reporting period;

(c) the number of children from (a) and (b) above, who had been provided
    triennial reevaluations during the reporting period;

(d) the number of children who had not been provided a timely triennial
    reevaluation at the conclusion of the reporting period; and

(e) the percent of timely triennial reevaluations provided to children
    with disabilities whose reevaluation deadlines fell during the
    reporting period.

> 3\. DCPS must describe the strategies it is implementing to reduce the
> number of overdue initial evaluations and placements and/or
> reevaluations, and, if there is no progress in reducing the number of
> overdue initial evaluations and placements and triennial
> reevaluations, DCPS must provide an explanation for this lack of
> progress and reevaluate the procedures it is implementing to reduce
> the number of overdue initial evaluations and placements and/or
> reevaluations.

4.  DCPS must report the average number of days the initial evaluations
    and placements and/or reevaluations that had not been provided in a
    timely manner were overdue for each reporting period.

B. [Implementation of Due Process Hearing Decisions]{.underline}

> 1\. In each progress report, DCPS must provide the following
> information:

(a) The number of children whose hearing officer determinations, as of
    the end of the previous reporting period, had not been implemented
    within the time frame established by the hearing officer or by DCPS;

(b) The number of children whose hearing officer determinations had not
    been implemented within the time frame established by the hearing
    officer or by DCPS (became overdue) during the reporting period;

(c) The number of children from (a) and (b) above whose hearing officer
    determinations were implemented during the reporting period;

(d) The number of children whose hearing officer determinations had not
    been implemented in a timely manner at the conclusion of the
    reporting period; and

(e) The percent of hearing officer determinations that had been
    implemented in a timely manner during the reporting period.

> 2\. In each progress report, DCPS must describe the strategies it is
> implementing to reduce the number of children whose hearing officer
> determinations are not implemented in a timely manner, and address any
> remaining barriers to the timely implementation of hearing officer
> decisions (those with a time frame set by the hearing officer and
> those without a time frame set by the hearing officer) and the steps
> being taken to remove those barriers.

C. [Ensure Placement in the Least Restrictive Environment]{.underline}

> 1\. In the first progress report, due February 1, 2008, DCPS must
> provide OSEP with a written explanation of how the State is meeting
> its responsibilities under 34 CFR §§300.119, 300.120 and 300.600 to
> ensure each public agency complies with the least restrictive
> environment requirements at 34 CFR §300.114. This includes a
> description of the activities undertaken to ensure that teachers and
> administrators in all public agencies are fully informed about their
> responsibilities for implementing the requirements of 34 CFR §300.114
> and any technical assistance and training activities carried out by
> the State to assist public agencies in this effort, as required by 34
> CFR §300.119.
>
> If DCPS uses the "*MDT Notes Guidelines"* and *"Placement Guidelines"*
> provided in its June 1, 2007 [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}
> Progress Report, DCPS must provide an explanation of how these
> documents are used to support the State's efforts to ensure compliance
> with 34 CFR §300.114, and provide the results. For any public agency
> that is found to make educational placements that are inconsistent
> with 34 CFR §300.114, DCPS must provide OSEP with a written
> explanation of the steps the State has taken to: (1) review the
> justification for the public agency's actions; and (2) assist in
> planning and implementing any necessary corrective action, as required
> by 34 CFR §300.120.
>
> 2\. With its FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, DCPS must provide to
> OSEP, any monitoring report(s) issued since February 1, 2007, that
> include the State's findings as to whether educational placement
> decisions were made consistent with the least restrictive environment
> provisions of the IDEA at 34 CFR §§300.114 through 300.120. DCPS must
> provide the number of findings of noncompliance related to these
> requirements made in the monitoring reports, the corrective actions
> imposed, the number and percent of those findings that have been
> corrected, and the status of any remaining corrective actions,
> including any actions undertaken by the State to ensure the corrective
> actions are being implemented and the noncompliance will be corrected
> within one year of identification.

3\. For the second progress report, due June 1, 2008, DCPS must provide
documentation it is carrying out the technical assistance, training, and
monitoring activities described in its first [FFY 2007 Special
Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report.

> 4\. With its second progress report, DCPS must provide OSEP any
> monitoring report(s) issued since February 1, 2008 that include the
> State's findings as to whether the educational placement decisions
> were made consistent with the least restrictive environment provisions
> of the IDEA at 34 CFR §§300.114 through 300.120. DCPS must also
> provide an update on the number of findings of noncompliance related
> to these requirements made in the monitoring reports issued since
> February 1, 2007, the corrective actions imposed, the number and
> percent of those findings that have been corrected, and the status of
> any remaining corrective actions, including any actions undertaken by
> DCPS to ensure those corrective actions are being implemented and the
> noncompliance will be corrected within one year of identification.
>
> D. [Identify and Correct Noncompliance]{.underline}

1.  In the first progress report, as part of its response to Indicator
    15 in the FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, DCPS must provide an
    updated description of the components included in the State's system
    of general supervision. This includes a written explanation of how
    the State uses these components, (such as on-site visits, dispute
    resolution processes, data collection, etc.) to monitor
    implementation of IDEA requirements by the State's local educational
    agencies.

2.  With its FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, DCPS must provide data
    that include the number of findings of noncompliance identified in
    the State's monitoring reports, issued between December 2005 and
    February 1, 2007, and the number of corrections the State has
    verified were completed as soon as possible but in no case later
    than one year from identification. For any findings of noncompliance
    identified in the monitoring reports that were not corrected within
    one year of the date of identification, DCPS must provide a
    description of the actions that the State has taken, including
    enforcement actions, to ensure correction of the finding(s).

> 3\. With its FFY 2006 APR, due February 1, 2008, DCPS must provide to
> OSEP all monitoring reports issued since February 1, 2007. DCPS must
> report the number of findings of noncompliance made in those
> monitoring reports, the corrective actions imposed, the number and
> percent of those findings that have been corrected, and the status of
> any remaining corrective actions, including any actions undertaken by
> DCPS to ensure those corrective actions are being implemented and the
> noncompliance will be corrected within one year of identification.
>
> 4\. For the second progress report, due June 1, 2008, DCPS must
> provide updated information on the data provided in the State's
> response to Indicator 15 in the FFY 2006 APR on the number and percent
> of findings of noncompliance identified in the State's monitoring
> reports issued between December 2005 and February 1, 2007 that have
> been corrected since the February 1, 2008 [FFY 2007 Special
> Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report. For any findings of
> noncompliance identified in the monitoring reports that were not
> corrected within one year, DCPS must provide a description of the
> actions that the State has taken, including enforcement actions, to
> ensure correction of the finding(s).
>
> 5\. DCPS must provide to OSEP any monitoring report(s) issued since
> the February 1, 2008 [FFY 2007 Special Conditions]{.underline}
> Progress Report. DCPS must report the number of findings of
> noncompliance made in those monitoring reports, the corrective actions
> imposed, the number and percent of those findings that have been
> corrected, and the status of any remaining corrective actions,
> including any actions undertaken by DCPS to ensure those corrective
> actions are being implemented and the noncompliance will be corrected
> within one year of identification.

3\. **Evidence Necessary for Conditions To Be Removed**

> The Department will remove these [Special Conditions]{.underline} if,
> at any time prior to the expiration of the grant year, DCPS provides
> documentation, satisfactory to the Department, that it has fully met
> the requirements and conditions set forth above, which require DCPS to
> submit data demonstrating compliance with each of the requirements
> related to: the timely provision of initial evaluations and placements
> and reevaluations; timely implementation of due process hearing
> decisions; ensuring placement of children with disabilities in the
> least restrictive environment; and identification and correction of
> noncompliance.

4\. **Method of Requesting Reconsideration**

> The State can write to Patricia J. Guard if it wishes the Department
> to reconsider any aspect of these [Special Conditions]{.underline}.
> The request must describe in detail the changes to the [Special
> Conditions]{.underline} sought by the State and the reasons for those
> requested changes.

5\. **Submission of Reports**

> DCPS must submit all reports required under the [Special
> Conditions]{.underline}. These reports should be submitted to:
>
> Lisa Pagano
>
> U.S. Department of Education
>
> Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
>
> 550 12^th^ Street, SW, Room 4174
>
> Washington, DC 20202
>
> or by e-mail to: [lisa.pagano@ed.gov]{.underline}

[^1]: Section 614(a)(1)(C)(i)(I) and 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) require that
    an initial evaluation be conducted within 60 days of receiving
    parental consent for the evaluation, or, if the State establishes a
    timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within such
    timeframe. Section 38-2501(a) of the D.C. Code states that DCPS must
    "assess or evaluate a student, who may have a disability and who may
    require special education services, within 120 days from the date
    that the student was referred for an evaluation or assessment".
    Section 3010.2 of Chapter 30 of the D.C. Municipal Regulations
    states "the timeliness for assessment and placement must be as
    follows: 60 working days to conduct an assessment, and 30 working
    days to propose an adequate placement of a child who can be placed
    within a special education program operated by a District of
    Columbia agency; and 60 working days to conduct an assessment, and
    60 working days to propose an adequate placement of a child who must
    be placed in a private or residential special education program".
    Page 5 of the Procedural Manual for Parents (as revised July 2005)
    states that "under District of Columbia law, the LEA has no more
    than 120 calendar days after the date a child is referred for
    evaluation to determine his/her eligibility for special education
    services, develop the individualized education program (IEP) and
    begin delivery of appropriate special education and related
    services".

[^2]: OSEP cannot determine why the number reported in (d) of this
    section of the State's [FFY 2006 Special Conditions]{.underline}
    Progress Report is not (a) + (b) − (c).

[^3]: Section 614(a)(2) and 34 CFR §300.303 require that a reevaluation
    occur at least once every three years, unless the parents and the
    local educational agency agree that a reevaluation is unnecessary.

[^4]: OSEP cannot determine why the number reported in (d) of this
    section of the State's final [FFY 2006 Special
    Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report is not (a) + (b) − (c).

[^5]: DCPS reports that the data includes both "triennial" reevaluations
    and reevaluations requested "out of cycle". During the FFY 2005
    reporting period, DCPS was able to provide data that specifically
    addressed the timeliness of "triennial" reevaluations. Because the
    data reported for FFY 2005 related to triennial reevaluations only,
    the Department cannot make comparisons between the data for FFY 2005
    and FFY 2006.

[^6]: ^?^ OSEP cannot determine why the number reported in (d) of this
    section of the State's final [FFY 2006 Special
    Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report is not (a) + (b) − (c).

[^7]: Although the charter school monitoring reports submitted by the
    State with its February 1, 2007 APR and [FFY 2006 Special
    Conditions]{.underline} Progress Report are dated July 12, 2006,
    copies provided to OSEP in November 2006 were undated. OSEP had
    previously been informed by the State that these charter school
    monitoring reports were issued on October 4, 2006.