March 31, 2004

Superintendent Patricia Hamamoto

Superintendent of Education

Hawaii Department of Education

1390 Miller Street, #307

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Superintendent Hamamoto:

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
Hawaii. As indicated in my letter to you of July 15, 2003, OSEP is
conducting verification visits to a number of States as part of our
Continuous Improvement and Focus Monitoring System for ensuring
compliance with, and improving performance under, Parts B and C of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

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 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 Hawaii Department of Education
(HIDOE), OSEP staff met with Dr. Paul Ban (the State's Director of
Special Education), and members of HIDOE's staff who are responsible
for: (1) the oversight of general supervision activities (including
monitoring, mediation, complaint resolution, and impartial due process
hearings); (2) the collection and analysis of State-reported data; and
(3) ensuring the participation in and reporting of student performance
on State-wide assessments. Prior to and during the visit, OSEP staff
reviewed a number of documents[^1] including: (1) Hawaii's Part B State
Improvement Plan; (2) the State's Biennial Performance Report for grant
years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001; (3) performance reports required under
the *Felix Consent Decree*; (4) Hawaii's Monitoring Manual; (5) Hawaii's
State Improvement Grant and General Supervision Enhancement Grant
applications; and (6) other pieces of information from the State's
website. In addition, OSEP also conducted a conference call on August
11, 2003, with Hawaii's Steering Committee on Special Education, 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. The State's special education director and other
special education services staff members participated in the call and
assisted us by recommending and inviting the participants.

OSEP staff also reviewed some additional State documents, including: (1)
the State Assessment Manual; (2) selected HIDOE monitoring reports and
corrective action documents for school complexes; (3) a memorandum to
complex area superintendents and district education specialists
regarding the *Federal Annual Performance Data Reports* submission for
school year 2002-2003; (4) suspension logs; (5) procedures for
validating the implementation of agreements and orders; and 6) HIDOE
tracking logs for complaints, mediation, and due process hearings.

The information that Dr. Ban and his staff provided during the OSEP
visit, together with all of the information that OSEP staff reviewed in
preparation for the visit, enhanced our understanding of HIDOE's systems
for general supervision, data collection and reporting, and State-wide
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.

OSEP conducted a targeted monitoring visit to Hawaii in 2001. As set
forth in OSEP's 2002 Hawaii Monitoring Report, OSEP found that HIDOE was
not effectively ensuring the identification of all noncompliance and
ensuring that all the noncompliance that HIDOE identified was fully
corrected. Although OSEP approved Hawaii's Improvement Plan pending
minor revisions, as a result of discussions during the verification
visit, HIDOE agreed to make additional changes or addenda to the
existing Improvement Plan. The proposed changes to the Improvement Plan
and a Progress Report were submitted to OSEP in January 2004 and are
currently under review. As part of its initial approval, OSEP had asked
HIDOE to provide additional documentation, on August 30, 2003, December
30, 2003 and June 30, 2004, regarding its progress in correcting the
noncompliance identified in OSEP's 2002 monitoring report.

### *Monitoring*

Without additional review, including review of the documentation that
HIDOE will be submitting under the Improvement Plan, OSEP cannot
determine whether the State has implemented a monitoring system that is
fully effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance with the
requirements of Part B of the IDEA as required by 34 CFR §300.600 and 20
USC §§ 1412(a)(11) and 1232d(b).

As documented in OSEP's 2002 monitoring report and interviews with HIDOE
staff, the State has been operating under the *Felix Consent Decree
(Felix*) since 1995. In accordance with Felix, a monitoring system was
put in place to evaluate Hawaii's progress in meeting the requirements
of Felix. This system is called Felix Service Testing.[^2] As reported
in OSEP's 2002 monitoring report, OSEP found that Felix Service Testing
did not monitor for compliance with certain IDEA requirements. To meet
the court requirements of Felix *and* its responsibility to ensure
compliance with IDEA Part B requirements, Hawaii developed a new
monitoring system in 2001 that combines the Felix Service Testing with a
process that examines procedural compliance under IDEA. Thus, *Hawaii's
Continuous Integrated Monitoring and Improvement Process (*CIMIP) was
developed to ensure program effectiveness, enforce State and IDEA legal
requirements, and measure results of corrective actions. Hawaii is
entering its second year of implementing the CIMIP system.

As set out in HIDOE's CIMIP manual (monitoring procedures) and
interviews with HIDOE staff, Hawaii's CIMIP is comprised of the
following components: 1) school-level self-review, 2) complex[^3]
self-review, 3) complex internal review, 4) State-level focus monitoring
and 5) technical assistance and training. Special and regular education
school personnel conduct the school-level self-review annually. The
school-level self-review is not based upon all the IDEA requirements,
but rather is focused on issues related to performance goals and
indicators. Schools and complexes conduct the review through the use of
a self-assessment and develop an improvement plan based on the
self-assessment results. The format for the self-assessment review and
improvement plan is identified in the CIMIP manual. Copies of the school
level self-reviews and improvement plans are submitted to the complex
and State.

Complex reviews (self-review and internal review) are conducted annually
to examine compliance with *Felix* and other State and IDEA special
education requirements. Whereas the complex self-review focuses on
compliance with the IDEA requirements not covered by Felix, the internal
review is an annual evaluation of system performance in improving
student outcomes.

The complex self-review activities include classroom visits, interviews,
questionnaires, focus group discussion and the review of special
education student files (records review). The complexes conduct the
record review through a "focus checklist" process that examines IDEA
compliance not addressed under Felix Service Testing. According to
interviews with the staff and the CIMIP manual, complexes must develop
an improvement plan based on the complex self-review findings. Copies of
the complex self-review, the improvement plan, and documentation to
verify the correction of IDEA noncompliance not addressed under Felix
Service Testing must be submitted to the complex area superintendent and
HIDOE for review. The State will conduct on-site monitoring visits if
systemic non-compliance is identified through the complex self-review.

The complex internal review process is the internal evaluation that
encompasses aspects of Felix Service Testing. School personnel within
the complex conduct the complex internal review of the other schools in
the complex to ensure correction in areas where the court found the
complexes to be in noncompliance. If a "complex system" has the
necessary supports to meet the needs of the child, it receives an
"acceptable" rating; if not, it gets a rating of "unacceptable." The
State conducts on-site monitoring visits of all complexes that have
"unacceptable" ratings.

As documented in the CIMIP manual and reported by HIDOE staff, complexes
generate monitoring reports and develop corrective action plans based on
findings in the reports. These documents are submitted to the State for
analysis and review. As part of the review process, HIDOE's special
education program managers conduct onsite verification visits to
complexes to ensure that the monitoring reports submitted to HIDOE are
credible. The program managers also review each corrective action plan
for adequacy to meet noncompliance issues and provide technical
assistance where needed. Complexes provide documentation to HIDOE to
show that corrective actions are implemented within three to six months
of the approved plan. Non-compliance identified in the corrective action
plan must be corrected within a year.

Staff that OSEP interviewed further explained that each HIDOE special
education staff member has adopted a "troubled complex." [^4] Under the
"adopt a district" concept, HIDOE staff identify data trends and factors
at the school level that are related to the noncompliance and provide
training, and technical assistance to make the necessary corrections.
The staff members consult with the State's Superintendent and present
data on the "adopted" complex and the status of the corrective action
plan. HIDOE staff informed OSEP that HIDOE is exploring the use of
sanctions in a unitary system and will be requesting OSEP's help in
examining available options.

As a result of the 2003 verification visit, OSEP is concerned with
aspects of the State's system for identifying and correcting
noncompliance. With regard to public charter schools, OSEP found that
HIDOE has not fully exercised it general supervisory authority through
monitoring. According to staff interviews, as of the 2003 verification
visit, public charter schools had not been included in the CIMIP system
or Felix Service Testing. The State is in the process of revising its
procedures so that public charter schools will be included as part of
the State's monitoring, including CIMIP, during the 2003-2004 school
year. It is OSEP's expectation that this issue will be addressed through
the revised Improvement Plan process. As part of that process, OSEP will
be asking that HIDOE submit additional documentation including a copy of
its 2003-2004 monitoring schedule that lists charter school reviews and
any reports of newly conducted monitoring of public charter schools.[^5]

In addition, OSEP's review of the State's 2002-2003 monitoring reports
of three complexes in three of the seven districts, indicated that in
some cases where HIDOE found noncompliance, the State did not
consistently require correction. For example, HIDOE provided
documentation that it cited a complex for noncompliance regarding
students with disabilities requiring extended school year services, but
was unable to provide OSEP with documentation of a corrective action
plan that included strategies to address this finding. According to
HIDOE, the corrective action plan was overdue from the complex. HIDOE
reported to OSEP that it is continuing to work to improve this aspect of
its monitoring system. It is OSEP's expectation that this issue will
also be addressed through the revised Improvement Plan and HIDOE's
additional submissions.

#### Hearings and Complaints

OSEP determined through its review of HIDOE's complaint log and
interviews with staff who are responsible for resolving complaints, that
HIDOE issues written decisions on Part B complaints within 60 calendar
days from its receipt of the complaint, unless the timeline is extended
due to exceptional circumstances that exist with regard to a particular
complaint, consistent with 34 CFR §300.661(a) and (b)(1). OSEP examined
HIDOE's log of special education complaints filed between 2000-2003. Of
the 22 complaints filed, 18 received a written decision within 60 days
of HIDOE's receipt and four were granted extensions of time due to
exceptional circumstances. Written decisions for these four complaints
were received within the specified amount of time noted in the
extensions.

HIDOE staff told OSEP that five hearing officers from the Office of
Administrative Hearings (OAH) of the Department of Commerce and Consumer
Affairs conduct due process hearings. As set forth at 34 CFR §300.511,
HIDOE must ensure that not later than 45 days after the receipt of a
request for a hearing a final decision is reached in the hearing and a
copy mailed to each of the parties, unless the impartial hearing officer
at the request of either party grants a specific extension of time. OSEP
reviewed HIDOE's due process hearing logs for the period of October 2002
through July 2003. Fifty of 128 requests were granted extensions at an
average of 90 days beyond the 45-day timeline. One case had not been
resolved after a 180-day extension. Staff interviewed reported that due
to the impartial hearing officers' inability to consistently meet the
45-day timeline requirement, the State is considering not renewing their
contracts. In order to assist the State in making decisions regarding
the renewal of contracts for impartial hearing officers, HIDOE has plans
to contract with a consultant from an outside agency.

OSEP's interview with HIDOE staff and the review of the October 2002
through July 2003 due process hearing logs also showed that HIDOE does
not always ensure that a copy of the due process hearing decision is
mailed to each party. The logs documented dates written decisions were
mailed to parties for only nine of the 128 requests. An education
specialist responsible for the oversight of due process hearing
procedures told OSEP that many hearing officers consider a request
resolved once a verbal agreement has been made between the parties even
though a written decision has not been completed and a copy mailed to
each of the parties. The education specialist further explained that
approximately 75% of these 128 requests were resolved within 45 days but
no written decisions were mailed. The special education director told
OSEP that beginning September 2003, OAH will provide HIDOE with a copy
of the written decision, and that HIDOE will take action to ensure that
due process hearing decisions are implemented. HIDOE's special education
director further stated that HIDOE will review the implementation of
hearing decisions in the next scheduled monitoring of the complexes.
OSEP noted in HIDOE's January 2004 Improvement Plan Progress Report,
that 45% of due process hearing requests filed during this school year
were not resolved within the 45-day timeline or the requested extension
timeline. It is OSEP's expectation that HIDOE will submit documentation
that it has corrected this noncompliance as part of its scheduled
submissions under the prior Improvement Plan.

### 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 any barriers, (e.g., limitations on authority,
sufficient staff or other resources, etc.) that impede the state's
ability to accurately, reliably and validly collect and report data
under section 618.

OSEP believes that HIDOE's system for collecting and reporting data
appears to be a reasonable approach to ensuring the accuracy of the data
that HIDOE reports to OSEP under section 618.

HIDOE staff informed OSEP that to meet the needs of 618 data reporting
requirements Hawaii uses a web-based data collection system: the Student
Information System (SIS) and the integrated special education system
(ISPED). HIDOE staff reported that the SIS enables them to integrate
with other existing systems and generate consolidated statistical
information regarding student population, services and other related
items (e.g. discipline, personnel, and graduation rates). Staff reported
that the SIS connects district and State offices, provides data on
Federal, legislative and State requirements, and tracks compliance with
timelines.

The ISPED provides stand-alone special education applications,
databases, spreadsheets and manual record keeping at the school,
complex, district and State levels. For each student with a disability,
ISPED stores student identification codes, student profiles,
documentation of evaluation, eligibility, disability type and placement,
individualized education program (IEP) requirements, and services. The
application generates child count reports, Felix benchmarks and
timelines, staffing allocations and type of services, data reported by
complexes and schools, and reading assessment data by levels and
complexes. Schools may only view student data for students with
disabilities enrolled in the school and complexes and districts may view
data for all schools within the complex or district. Reports are
reviewed at the State level and changes are made at the school level for
systems corrections.

According to HIDOE's special education data manager, all ISPED users
must receive training in order to access the system and online support
is available when needed. HIDOE uses OSEP's data definitions to generate
the 618 reports, and personnel in the State's special education section
make every effort to follow OSEP's data instructions. These instructions
are included with the required 618 data tables to school and district
personnel. Some of the reports, such as Tables 1 (Child Count) and 3
(Placement) utilize data generated from specific fields in ISPED. Data
for Tables 2 (Personnel), 4 (Exit) and 5 (Discipline) are downloaded
from the SIS. District special education coordinators are responsible
for collecting and aggregating all tables and transmitting data from the
district to the State through paper or electronic-mail transmittal,
adhering to the 618 specifications and definitions the State has
received from OSEP.

Staff interviewed told OSEP that they think the 618 data are accurate
and reliable**.** A data manager at the State level is responsible for
entering the 618 data submitted by the districts into a 618 database
created by the State and ensuring that the ISPED and SIS data for the
618 data submission is accurate. The data manager and special education
staff explained that to ensure accuracy, the State uses real time data
by reviewing data screens with school personnel responsible for entering
the data, and requiring them to correct any errors. They report that the
current year's data are also compared with those of previous years to
identify trends or to flag data that may be inaccurate. The State
reports that checks are in place to ensure that there are no duplicates
and that data collected are within the parameters of the guidelines.

The State reports that it ensures reliability of data by reviewing ISPED
reports, providing training and technical assistance to school and
complex staff, and posting changes to the ISPED system on the website. A
memorandum from the Superintendent of Education is posted on the website
at the beginning and end of the school year outlining "clean up"
procedures for ISPED student records. Staff report that support
technicians bring frequent questions to the State's attention which
provide the basis for the State to provide trainings where needed. The
data manager and special education director reported that to promote
accurate and timely submission of data, the State provides a \$1000
incentive to schools that have clean 618 data submissions. The system
supports and checks to ensure that data are current, accurate and
reliable.

**[State-wide Assessment]{.underline}**

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.

Without additional review, including review of the documentation that
HIDOE will be submitting under the Improvement Plan and the April 30,
2004 Annual Performance Report (APR), OSEP cannot determine that those
procedures for State-wide assessments and the State's reports to the
public and the Secretary on the participation and performance of
children with disabilities on such assessments, as written, are
consistent with Part B requirements.

OSEP's review of *Hawaii's Spring 2004, State Assessment: Student
Participation Information Handbook* and interviews with HIDOE testing
coordinators showed that Hawaii administers two State-wide assessments:
the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards II (HCPSII) and Stanford
Achievement Test, ninth edition (SAT-9). All children in grades 3, 5, 8,
and 10 are required to take the HCPSII and SAT-9 with or without
accommodations, or an alternate assessment as documented in the IEP in
the areas of reading, writing, and mathematics. The regular and
alternate assessment systems are aligned with Hawaii's Content
Performance Standards. Staff interviewed also told OSEP that Hawaii
policy permits students to be excused from participating in assessments
under the following conditions: parent refusal, medical fragility,
emotional distress, homebound, hospitalization, and limited English
proficiency. Further, HIDOE staff told OSEP that the State will no
longer administer out-of-level testing.

Interviews with testing coordinators and a review of Hawaii's staff
development plan from 2000-2003 indicated that staff from HIDOE's Test
Development section conducts inservice training each year on State-wide
assessment for all school, complex and district staff. Staff reported
that testing coordinators visit classrooms during the assessment
administration to ensure students with disabilities are participating in
the State-wide assessment program according to the requirements outlined
in the IEP.

Staff interviewed reported that the HCPSII is intended to provide the
reporting results to measure adequate yearly progress as required under
*NCLB.*[^6] The SAT-9 results are used for reporting student achievement
to Hawaii's legislature and board of education as well as to provide a
comparison of student performance across States. Hawaii's Improvement
Plan shows that 83% of students with disabilities in grades 3, 5, 8, and
10 participated in the 2002 State-wide regular testing.

The testing coordinators informed OSEP that the reporting of assessment
results include district and school profiles that identify the
percentage of children with disabilities who participate in regular and
alternate assessments. HIDOE's website provides information on
State-wide regular and alternate assessment results in the form of State
and District Summary Accountability Reports. The accountability reports
provide aggregated and disaggregated data on the reading and mathematics
proficiency levels of students in grades 3, 5, 8, and 10 of Hawaii's
public schools as well as students who are publicly placed in private,
residential, and other public settings. The reading and mathematics test
results show the percentage of students with and without disabilities
who performed at the "well below," "approaches," "meets," and "exceeds"
proficiency levels. Alternate assessment results are also reported in an
evidence binder that addresses IEP goals and objectives and these
results are shared with parents.

Part B, at 34 CFR §300.139, requires that States make available to the
public, and report to the public with the same frequency and in the same
detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children, the
number and performance results of children with disabilities who
participate in the regular assessment and the alternate assessment. In
addition, 34 CFR §300.137 requires that the State establish performance
indicators used to assess progress toward achieving State goals related
to the performance of children with disabilities on assessments. OSEP
found that HIDOE does not report assessment performance results of
students with disabilities who take the alternate assessment in the same
detail as it reports on the assessment of nondisabled children. Further,
the use of only one performance level for all students with disabilities
who take the alternate assessment is not consistent with the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.137. Staff told OSEP that students with
disabilities who are administered the alternate assessment are
automatically included in the \"well below proficiency\" performance
level for reading and mathematics regardless of their performance on the
alternate assessment. The special education director explained that
HIDOE only reports alternate assessment performance results for students
with disabilities in the \"well below proficiency\" level because
student performance on the alternate assessment would not be comparable
to a student\'s performance on the standards of the regular assessment.
Currently, HIDOE is examining what other States are doing in this area
and will evaluate whether HIDOE will use alternative achievement
standards. In its April 30, 2004 APR, HIDOE either must indicate how it
is meeting the requirements, at 34 CFR §300.137 and §300.139, or submit
a plan for how the State will demonstrate that it is meeting the
requirements, at 34 CFR §§300.137 and 300.139, regarding performance
indicators and the reporting of performance results for students with
disabilities who take the alternate assessment, within one year of
approval of the plan by OSEP.

**[Conclusion]{.underline}**

As noted above, HIDOE must address, either through its APR data
submission, additional data submissions under the Improvement Plan, or
revisions to its Improvement Plan, each of the following areas: 1)
noncompliance relating to due process hearing decisions; 2) ensuring the
timely correction of previously-identified noncompliance; 3) the
inclusion of public charter schools in its monitoring systems; and 4)
performance indicators and the reporting of performance results for
students with disabilities who take the alternate assessment. It is
OSEP's expectation that the issues that were previously addressed in the
Improvement Plan will be resolved by the June 30, 2004 data submission.

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided by your staff
during our visit. We look forward to collaborating with Hawaii 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: Dr. Paul Ban

[^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]: According to a Felix Monitoring Project document, Felix Service
    Testing is an outcomes-focused method of monitoring that provides
    data about how systems are working to sustain and strengthen current
    successes of students with disabilities and identify limitations so
    services are improved.

[^3]: HIDOE monitors school complexes which consist of high schools and
    all of the middle and elementary schools that feed into them.

[^4]: A troubled complex is one that has received an "unacceptable"
    monitoring rating through the internal review process.

[^5]: OSEP has some additional concerns regarding public charter schools
    and students with disabilities that will be addressed under separate
    cover.

[^6]: Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended
    by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, also includes a number of
    requirements related to including children with disabilities in
    State assessment programs and reporting on their participation and
    performance on regular and alternate assessments that in many
    instances are more specific than requirements in the IDEA. For
    example, the Title I regulations require, at 34 CFR §200.2(b)(3) and
    (4), that all State assessments must, "(3)(i) Be aligned with the
    State\'s challenging academic content and student academic
    achievement standards; and (ii) Provide coherent information about
    student attainment of those standards. (4)(i) Be valid and reliable
    for the purposes for which the assessment system is used; and (ii)
    Be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and
    technical standards." This letter does not, and should not be
    interpreted to, address Hawaii's compliance with requirements of
    Title I.