May 20, 2004

Honorable Patrick Ogden

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Utah State Office of Education

250 East 500 South

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Dear Superintendent Ogden:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the results of the Office
of Special Education Programs' (OSEP's) recent verification visit to
Utah. As indicated in my letter to you of January 20, 2004, OSEP is
conducting verification visits to a number of States as part of our
Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) for
ensuring compliance with, and improving performance under, Parts B and C
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). We conducted
our visit to Utah from April 27-28, 2004.

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

As part of the verification visit to the Utah State Office of Education
(USOE), OSEP staff met with Mr. Karl Wilson, the State's Director of
Special Education and members of USOE's staff who are responsible for
the State's general supervision activities (including monitoring,
mediation, complaint resolution, and impartial due process hearings),
the collection and analysis of State-reported data, and State-wide
assessment. Prior to and during the visit, OSEP staff reviewed a number
of documents[^1], including the following: (1) the State's response to
the Desk Audit questions; (2) the State's Annual Performance Report for
grant year 2002-2003; (3) the Utah Corrective Action Plan concerning the
Special Conditions under which Utah was granted Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2003 funding under Part B; 4) the Utah State Improvement Grant
(SIG) application; (5) the 2004 Utah General Supervision Enhancement
Grant (GSEG); (6) USOE Data Base Requirements and other documents
related to the collection and reporting of 618 data; (7) the Utah
Comprehensive System of Personnel Development; (8) the Utah Alternate
Assessment Administration Manual and Assessment Tasks; and (9) other
information from the State's website related to special education and
State-wide assessment in Utah.

OSEP also conducted a conference call on March 25, 2004, with several
members from Utah's Steering Committee to hear their perspectives on the
strengths and weaknesses of the State's systems for general supervision,
data collection, and for Part B, State-wide Assessment. Mr. Wilson and
other USOE Part B staff participated in the call and assisted us by
recommending and inviting the participants.

The information that Mr. Wilson and his staff provided during the OSEP
visit, together with all of the information that OSEP staff reviewed in
preparation for the visit, greatly enhanced our understanding of USOE's
systems for general supervision, data collection and reporting, and
Statewide assessment.

# General Supervision

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

With the exception of the two issues noted in this section, OSEP
believes that USOE's systems for general supervision constitute a
reasonable approach to the identification and correction of
noncompliance; however, OSEP cannot, without also collecting data at the
local level, determine whether the systems are fully effective in
identifying and correcting noncompliance.

At the beginning of the OSEP verification visit, USOE staff discussed
the Utah Agenda for Students with Disabilities established in 1991and
updated in 2003. The review of the Utah Agenda included identifying the
objectives, such as: performance on the State-wide assessment;
diploma/certificate acquisition; age appropriate social behaviors; and
the analysis of suspension data. The Utah Agenda has ten strategies to
achieve the objectives.

USOE reported that a major restructuring of its general supervision
systems occurred since OSEP's monitoring visit in 1999. While the past
monitoring system had been generally effective in maintaining procedural
compliance, it had not been used to systematically evaluate the impact
of special education services on student achievement. USOE developed the
Utah Program Improvement Planning System (UPIPS) emphasizing a
data-driven, systematic approach to compliance and improved results for
children with disabilities. Major monitoring themes include continuity,
partnership with stakeholders, local educational agency (LEA)
accountability, self-assessment and improvement planning, data to drive
results, and technical assistance.

USOE and OSEP reviewed the UPIPS Manual. The following description of
the USOE's monitoring system is based on OSEP's review of the Manual and
interviews with USOE staff. USOE conducts an on-site monitoring visit to
all 40 LEAs and the State's 20 charter schools as well as the juvenile
correction facilities and the Utah School for the Deaf and Blind at
least once every five years.

In Year one of the five-year monitoring cycle, an LEA conducts a
Self-Assessment and develops a Program Improvement Plan. The LEA
establishes a steering committee comprised of stakeholders in the
State's special education system to guide the development of the
Self-Assessment process. While developing the Self-Assessment, each LEA
convenes focus groups and reviews local, State and national outcome data
provided by the State as part of the State's resources for technical
assistance. State-wide assessment data at the State and local levels are
also provided by the State for the steering committee to use in the
Self-Assessment process. (See the State-wide Assessment section of this
letter for additional information about the State-wide assessment.)

Minimally, the LEA must consider the State-prepared data analysis of the
LEA's performance and describe how the LEA will address issues raised by
the data analysis. The State uses the UPIPS Student Record Review, a
software program developed through the Utah GSEG, to aid the LEA in
reviewing the completeness and accuracy of each student record file. The
State provides funding for LEAs during the Self-Assessment process. In
the event that an LEA fails to complete the Self-Assessment, USOE would
place a special condition on the LEA grant award and the LEA would not
receive a reimbursement grant covering the expenses the LEA incurred
while developing the Self-Assessment.

At the conclusion of Year one, USOE meets with the LEA to discuss the
results of the State's review of the Self-Assessment. USOE staff also
review the LEA's Self-Assessment to determine the level of on-site
monitoring and technical assistance the LEA will receive from the State
in Year two.

In Years three through five, the LEA submits annual progress reports
related to the Program Improvement Plan and a corrective action plan, if
a corrective action is required. If 20% or more of the student files are
out of compliance, the State determines there is systemic noncompliance
and the LEA must develop a written corrective action plan. The State
monitors the implementation of the corrective action plan during the
following year. When the State identifies non-systemic noncompliance,
such as when one student record file is out of compliance, the State
monitoring team meets with the local director of special education,
provides detailed information about the specific finding, and requires
the local director to correct the nonsystemic noncompliance. The Program
Improvement Plans are adjusted based on continuous self-assessment
during Years four and five. Depending on the issues that arise out of
the monitoring system and the dispute resolution system, the LEA may
receive an on-site visit in addition to the regular, cyclical monitoring
visit. Even though USOE informs the local director of special education
when USOE identifies non-systemic noncompliance, the State does not
follow-up to ensure the non-systemic noncompliance is corrected. Under
20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E), the State is required to correct deficiencies
in program operations that are identified through monitoring. USOE must
submit to OSEP, no later than 60 days from the date of this letter,
either documentation that it has already ensured the correction of
non-systemic noncompliance that it identified through monitoring, or a
plan for correcting that noncompliance as soon as possible but no later
than one year from the date of OSEP's acceptance of the plan.

The State on-site monitoring visit is conducted in Year two of the
five-year cycle. With the focus on both compliance with IDEA and student
outcomes, the State interviews the LEA director, special education case
managers, secondary students, regular and special education teachers,
LEA representatives on the IEP teams, and related services personnel.
The selection of personnel interviewed by the State is aligned with the
student files reviewed by the State. During the on-site visit, the LEA
also invites parents to a parent focus group convened by the State
monitoring team.

At the conclusion of the on-site visit, the State monitoring team
convenes a consensus meeting with the steering committee. The State
monitoring team also meets with the LEA superintendent and the local
special education director to share the results of the monitoring visit,
including specific noncompliance issues the team found during the visit.

USOE staff described how the State Improvement Grant enhances the
quality of special education personnel, including recruitment and
retention of teachers and related services personnel. The State works
closely with LEAs and institutions of higher education to determine the
quality of the professional development programs. When noncompliance in
this area is determined by the State monitoring team, the State meets
with the LEA director of special education to define the technical
resources that the LEA will access to address the monitoring findings
related to professional development. The State would like to enhance the
cooperation between the State Personnel Development Center, the USOE
staff and LEAs in their efforts to secure highly qualified staff. The
State identified the Reading First Initiative as one of the personnel
development areas where cooperation between USOE and LEAs is working
well for both regular and special education teachers. Some LEAs follow
the State's Comprehensive System of Personnel Development goal to train
special educators and release teachers to attend State training
programs.

OSEP staff reviewed one of the State's monitoring files for an LEA. The
file included information related to each phase of the monitoring
process including findings identified by the LEA, findings identified by
USOE, and documentation that systemic noncompliance was corrected in one
year or less. Although the LEA file reviewed by OSEP demonstrated
compliance within a year, USOE does not have a formal mechanism to
ensure that compliance is corrected within a year.

OSEP learned, through its review of USOE's complaint log and through
interviews with the State staff that USOE investigates administrative
complaints and has the authority to order compensatory education. USOE
reported that, in a one-year timeline, when USOE investigated complaints
and issued its findings, five of thirteen were not issued within 60
calendar days from its receipt of the complaint consistent with 34 CFR
§300.661(a) and (b)(1). USOE must submit to OSEP, no later than 60 days
from the date of this letter either documentation that it has already
corrected the failure to resolve all complaints within timelines or a
plan for correcting that noncompliance as soon as possible but no later
than one year from the date of OSEP's acceptance of the plan. USOE is
reviewing the State's complaint process to determine what strategies the
State needs to use in order to meet the complaint timeline.
Additionally, USOE staff stated that they plan to meet with the State
Disability Law Center to work more collaboratively in addressing issues
related to IDEA implementation.

In 2001, the State moved from a two-tier to a one-tier due process
hearing system to address the timelines issue. OSEP learned, through its
review of USOE's due process hearing log and through interviews, that
all timelines are met and that, specifically, decisions on due process
hearings are issued within 45 calendar days from USOE's receipt of the
hearing request, unless the hearing officer grants a specific extension
of the timeline at the request of a party, consistent with 34 CFR
§300.511(a) and (c).

USOE staff told OSEP that one way it has addressed the hearing timeline
is that the State initiated new recruitment procedures for hearing
officers, including the requirement that all hearing officers attend
State-mandated training for a period of two days. At the conclusion of
the training, USOE required individuals who wanted to be hearing
officers to pass a State examination. After appointment to the position
of hearing officer, the State requires the hearing officer to attend a
State training program offered biennially. USOE carefully considers each
decision to determine if the problem addressed by the decision is a
systemic issue in the respective LEA or in the State. If it is systemic,
the State requires training for the LEA staff (i.e. principals and
special education department chairs) and then requires those
participants to train all staff in their respective offices and schools.

The Parent Center conducts training for parents about how to access the
dispute system, with special outreach to parents who reside in rural
areas. The Utah Law Institute is convened every summer for parents,
teachers, administrators and the Special Education Advisory Panel to
learn about recent administrative and regulatory changes in special
education laws.

USOE staff described their authority to withhold funds with the approval
of the State Board of Education. The authority is specific to the LEA's
violations when compiling the child count report. When the LEA does not
complete the required activities and documentation to assure compliance
issues are corrected, the State communicates directly with the LEA
superintendent. The State delays funding if the LEA does not complete
the activities the State requires as a follow-up to the on-site visit.
The State is exploring further sanctions as a means of ensuring the
timely correction of noncompliance.

The State discussed the results of the State's Self-Assessment regarding
the issue of early childhood transition. The State is unable to track
100% of the Part C children who are eligible for special education
services at their third birthday. The State has a memorandum of
understanding between Part B and Part C. The State explained the
challenge of implementing the State's memorandum of understanding in
tracking Part C children who leave Part C when the parents have not
provided the consent to share child-specific information between the
Part B and Part C agencies. To address this challenge, USOE, the Utah
Department of Health, and the Utah Parent Center developed a DVD
entitled *For Parents: Transitioning Your Child from Early Intervention
and Preschool.* The State also discussed a survey of parents of
preschool children indicating that the quality of transition services
was adequate or better.

*Collection of data under section 618 of the IDEA.*

In looking at the State's system for data collection and reporting, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) provides clear guidance and ongoing training to local
programs/public agencies regarding requirements and procedures for
reporting data under section 618 of the IDEA; (2) implements procedures
to determine whether the individuals who enter and report data at the
local and/or regional level do so accurately and in a manner that is
consistent with the State's procedures, OSEP guidance, and section 618;
(3) implements procedures for identifying anomalies in data that are
reported, and correcting any inaccuracies; and (4) has identified
barriers, (e.g., limitations on authority, sufficient staff or other
resources, etc.) that impede the State's ability to accurately, reliably
collect and report data under section 618.

OSEP believes that USOE\'s system for collecting and reporting data is
reasonably calculated to ensure the accuracy of the data that USOE
reports to OSEP under section 618.

During OSEP's verification visit, USOE discussed the evolution of the
State's data capacity. In March 2000, all section 618 child count data
were collected through pencil and paper. In 2004, the State system is
almost 100% electronic. The special education data manager works
collaboratively with other data management personnel at USOE. The USOE
Data Clearinghouse has a broad range of data collected on all children
attending public schools in Utah, including students with disabilities.
The Data Warehouse contains data elements such as discipline[^2],
assessments, attendance and teacher information that is used to guide
decision-making at the State and local levels. Individual files are
created at the school and LEA levels and downloaded into the Warehouse.
The individual student files contain data fields necessary for Federal
reporting purposes. Data are collected from all entities within the LEA
boundaries as well as from the State School for the Deaf and Blind.

As described in the General Supervision section of this letter, OSEP
learned that the collection of data is a significant component of the
UPIPS. Data are used for the LEA self-assessment process, the State
off-site data review and on-site data collection. Annual reports from
LEAs are part of the continuous improvement monitoring process. Each
year, the Utah State Advisory Panel reviews the reports from each of the
districts. The feedback from this panel is used to improve the UPIPS
process for the next school year.

USOE staff told OSEP that the data manager conducts individualized
training events for special education directors on a regular basis to
ensure the directors and local data managers are aware of the State's
data collection methodology. The State disseminates policy guidance for
gathering, analyzing and reporting special education data in compliance
with IDEA reporting requirements, including the definitions for the data
fields. State staff provide individual consultations for specific
problems, including issues that arise during the State on-site
monitoring visits. USOE also provides training at special education
leadership meetings, including meetings with charter school personnel
and at various workshops and roundtable discussions. Technical
assistance is also provided through telephone communications and email.
During interviews with USOE staff, OSEP staff found that the State's
General Supervision Education Grant has had a major impact on the
capacity building of the State's data collection activities. Data from
UPIPS student record reviews are collected electronically and systemic
compliance error reports are generated through the same system.

The State reported that it uses various tools to ensure security of the
State database. The director of the USOE Information Technology has the
authority to grant access to the data system. Staff use passwords as the
method for limiting access. State personnel determine an individual's
level of access to the data in the Clearinghouse. Districts limit access
to individual student files in the Clearinghouse to those who work
directly with the students. Larger districts enter all student data at
one center terminal to ensure security and accuracy. The State created
and uses a data accuracy auditing protocol that identifies and flags
incorrect codes and dates. The State sends questioned data back to LEAs
for correction before it is entered into the USOE Data Clearinghouse.
After data are compiled and disaggregated in a reporting document, the
State sends the district a hard copy. The LEA Special Education Director
or Superintendent is obliged to sign a certification that the data are
correct.

The State identified the following challenges in the data collection
system: (1) non-electronic submission of personnel and discipline data;
(2) data about students who move from one LEA to another or to another
State; (3) consistent reporting of educational setting and environments
across all the LEAs and charter schools; (4) the number of different
computer platforms used by LEAs (the State receives data from the State
Student Information System, several different types of LEA mainframes,
etc.); (5) the accuracy of preschool enrollment; and (6) the formula for
determining the dropout rate. USOE identified activities currently
underway to address each of these barriers and challenges. OSEP suggests
that USOE submit the progress in addressing these challenges in the
State\'s next APR.

*State-wide Assessment*

In looking at the State's system for State-wide assessment, OSEP
collected information regarding a number of elements, including whether
the State: (1) establishes procedures for State-wide assessment that
meet the participation, alternate assessment, and reporting requirements
of Part B, including ensuring the participation of all students,
including students with disabilities, and the provision of appropriate
accommodations; (2) provides clear guidance and training to public
agencies regarding those procedures and requirements; (3) monitors local
implementation of those procedures and requirements; and (4) reports on
the performance of children with disabilities on those assessments, in a
manner consistent with those requirements. In order to better understand
your system for State-wide assessment, OSEP also discussed with your
staff how the alternate assessment is aligned with grade-appropriate
content standards.

OSEP reviewed documentation about Utah's assessment system prior to the
verification visit and confirmed during interviews with State staff that
the State Legislature enacted legislation in 2000 creating the Utah
Performance Assessment System for Students

(U-PASS). The Core Assessment Criterion-Reference Tests (in language
arts, grades 1-11; in mathematics, grades 1-12; and in science, grades
4-12) assess major elements of the Utah State Core Curriculum. The
Direct Writing Assessment is administered in grades 6 and 9. The Basic
Skills Competency Test is administered beginning in grade 10 and in
subsequent years until the student passes the test or has participated
in three trials. The Stanford 9 is administered in grades 3, 5, 8 and 11
and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is
administered to students who are selected by NAEP. These assessments
form the foundation of the U-PASS. During the visit, USOE shared that
the State revised the assessment system for students not reading at
grade level. These students have the option of taking a supplemental
core assessment. The State no longer permits out-of-level testing as
part of the State-wide assessment. Results of the norm-referenced tests
and participation in the NAEP provide USOE with information about the
progress of students and the students' relative performance with their
age/grade-level peers nationwide.

The State also discussed pathways to high school completion. The State
identified the two types of regular high school diplomas, the
alternative completion diploma and the basic high school diploma that
will be in effect for the graduating class of 2006. Students with
disabilities served by special education programs may have changes made
to graduation requirements through the IEPs to meet unique education
needs. Currently, a student may be awarded a regular high school
diploma, if diploma requirements are met, or a certificate of
completion. USOE expressed a concern about the future impact of a newly
adopted, high-stakes graduation test that will apply to the graduating
class of 2006 and beyond. The State has taken steps to ensure that the
graduation rate and the dropout rate are not negatively affected by the
test.

Students with disabilities participate in the U-PASS in the same manner
as regular students with modifications and accommodations as
appropriate. USOE monitors the participation and performance of students
with disabilities when the State conducts its monitoring visit in the
LEA using a monitoring checklist to ensure compliance with IDEA
State-wide assessment requirements. The State developed procedures and
issued guidelines to assist LEAs and IEP teams in determining student
participation in State-wide, district-wide and alternate assessments.
Specifically, the State developed a document entitled "Participation of
Students with Disabilities in Utah's Statewide Assessment Programs
2003-2004" that provides information for decision-making by school
personnel, parents, and other IEP team members about the participation
of students with disabilities in the various assessments. It explains in
detail the use of adaptations, including accommodations and
modifications, where necessary for students to participate. Information
is also presented about the alternate assessments for students who
cannot participate in other parts of U-PASS. USOE utilizes this document
to train district personnel throughout the State. In addition, the State
website includes the established assessment guidelines and a range of
information about participation in and accommodations for State-wide
assessments and reporting the performance of students with disabilities
on State-wide assessments.

Because the State has developed a comprehensive assessment system, most
LEAs have discontinued district-wide assessments. The State is
conducting a survey to determine if any of the State's LEAs are
administering district-wide assessments during the 2003-04 school year.
The preliminary results of the survey indicate that several LEAs
administered an assessment at the kindergarten level. Based on the
results of the survey, USOE staff stated that they would work with LEAs
to ensure that all district-wide assessments meet IDEA requirements,
including requirements for alternate assessments for students with
disabilities.

As OSEP explained in the July 7, 2003 letter, Utah's FFY 2003 IDEA Part
B Grant Award was released subject to special conditions regarding the
alternate assessment. Specifically, OSEP determined that Utah was not
developing and administering alternate assessments and reporting
publicly and to the Secretary on the participation and performance of
children with disabilities (in science) in alternate assessments, as
required at 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(17) and 34 CFR §300.139(a)(2). Utah is
contracting with Utah State University to develop an alternate
assessment in the area of science that will be aligned with the Utah
Core Curriculum. According to Utah's corrective action plan and Utah's
Annual Performance Report, full implementation of Utah's alternate
assessment in science will occur during the 2005-06 school year. OSEP
indicated in its March 18, 2004 letter that while this is a reasonable
plan, it does not ensure that the special conditions would be met by
June 30, 2004. OSEP is concerned that this timeline will not allow Utah
to meet the terms of the special conditions. This may have an impact on
Utah's FFY '04 grant award.

The State analyzed data from each LEA to identify specific training
needs related to State-wide assessment. The results of the data analysis
led to the establishment of the Utah Agenda Literacy Initiative, the
Utah Core Curriculum Academies, the No Child Left Behind Conference, and
Accommodations, Innovations and Modifications (AIMS) Training. The Utah
Agenda for Students with Disabilities includes an objective to reduce
the achievement gap between students with disabilities and their
nondisabled peers. The State established a system to allow the State to
"drill down" to better define the specific links between enhancing
instruction to increase student performance. The State also established
the Core Curriculum Academy to help more than 3500 regular and special
education teachers learn how to differentiate instruction in science and
language arts. The State provides follow-up technical assistance at the
LEA level, as appropriate.

The Special Education Services Unit works closely with the USOE Division
of Student Achievement and School Success to ensure that the needs of
students with disabilities are included in all accountability and reform
efforts. The monitoring process determines whether individual IEP teams
have included participation in assessment information in individual
student files reviewed by the State. The USOE Interventions Team
includes a special education specialist in assessment. The team provides
direct technical assistance to schools identified by the State as
needing improvement, including training to assist teachers in providing
IEP accommodations, modifications, and differentiated instruction.

The USOE Curriculum and the Evaluation and Assessment Sections provide
training and guidance for LEA curriculum and assessment directors every
other month. The Special Education Assessment Specialist also makes
presentations at these meetings. Utah also provides specific training
for LEAs on accommodations, modifications, and interventions. Some of
this training is offered through the Utah Professional Development
Center. USOE organizes information about training participation and
training topics by LEA and reviews this information as part of the
professional development plan for each LEA. USOE further evaluates the
impact of the LEA in this training through the analysis of the LEA's
student participation rates and student performance on core assessments
and Utah's alternate assessment. In 2004, the State monitoring process
included a student record review regarding student participation in the
Utah Alternate Assessment.

In summary, two items in this letter require a response from USOE, as
noted in the general supervision section of this letter. First, USOE
must submit to OSEP documentation that, when USOE identified
non-systemic noncompliance, the non-systemic noncompliance is corrected
within a year. Second, USOE must demonstrate that complaints are
resolved within the 60 calendar day timeline. As noted in the collection
of data section of this letter, OSEP also suggests that USOE include the
State's progress in addressing the challenges of collecting and
reporting data under section 618 of IDEA in the State's next Annual
Performance Report.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit and look forward to collaborating with Utah as you
continue to work to improve results for children with disabilities and
their families.

> Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard for

Stephanie Smith Lee

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Mr. Karl Wilson

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

[^2]: LEAs have the option of entering discipline data (suspension and
    expulsion) into the USOE Data Clearinghouse but most LEAs continue
    to submit the data to the State in a non-electronic format.