######## January 14, 2005

Honorable Rita H. Inos

Commissioner of Education

CNMI Public School System

P.O. Box 50130 CK

Saipan, MP 96950

Dear Commissioner Inos:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands' (CNMI) May 2003 Self-Assessment, that was
developed in conjunction with its Steering Committee, and the March 31,
2004 submission of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002 Annual Performance
Report (APR) for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Part B funds used during the grant period July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003. The APR reflects actual accomplishments made by CNMI during the
reporting period, compared to established objectives. The APR for IDEA
is designed to provide uniform reporting from States and territories,
and result in high quality information across States and territories.

The APR is a significant data source utilized in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) implemented by OSEP
within the U.S. Department of Education. The APR falls within the third
component of OSEP's four-part accountability strategy (i.e., supporting
States in assessing their performance and compliance, and in planning,
implementing, and evaluating improvement strategies) and consolidates
the self-assessing and improvement planning functions of CIFMS into one
document. OSEP's Memorandum regarding the submission of Part B APRs
directed CNMI to address five cluster areas: General Supervision; Early
Childhood Transition; Parent Involvement; Free Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment; and Secondary
Transition.

# ***Background***

CNMI submitted its Part B Self-Assessment in May 2003 and its FFY 2002
APR on March 31, 2004. OSEP provided verbal feedback to CNMI staff on
CNMI\'s Self-Assessment during OSEP\'s Annual Leadership Conference in
Washington, D.C. in May 2004, and also sent an informal e-mail to Ms.
Joanne Nicholls outlining issues identified in the Self-Assessment on
May 13, 2004.

In the informal e-mail, OSEP identified the absence of formal and
comprehensive monitoring instruments and procedures (page 20 of the
Self-Assessment) as an area of noncompliance. OSEP also identified the
following as areas of potential noncompliance: (1) ensuring supervision
of out-of-district placements, (page 28 of the Self-Assessment) (34 CFR
§300.349); and (2) ensuring that children exiting the Part C program who
are eligible for Part B services receive appropriate educational
services by their third birthdays (page 68 of the Self-Assessment) (34
CFR §300.132(b)). OSEP also advised in the May 13, 2004 e-mail that it
had determined that the Self-Assessment did not provide information and
data sufficient to make a determination of compliance or noncompliance
in a number of areas, which will be addressed as appropriate in the
remainder of this letter.

For FFY 2002-2003, CNMI received its Part B grant Awards subject to a
special condition specifically related to reporting to the public and to
the Secretary on the participation and performance of children with
disabilities in grades 10 and 11 in alternate assessments. An action
plan was developed and accepted by OSEP that outlined the specific steps
for addressing the special condition. The public report of participation
and performance results for all students in the State-wide assessment
system (SAT9 and Alternate Assessment) was presented to the CNMI Board
of Education in October 2003 for school year 2002-2003. As required, the
report was submitted to OSEP. Based upon the information in the report,
OSEP determined that the special condition regarding State-wide
assessments could be removed from CNMI's FFY 2004 Part B grant award.

OSEP will visit CNMI in the Spring of 2005 to verify the effectiveness
of CNMI's systems for general supervision, the collection of data under
Section 618 of IDEA, and participation of children with disabilities in
and reporting on State-wide assessments. OSEP will provide CNMI with a
letter summarizing the results of the visit.

CNMI's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting of
relevant data and document data-based determinations regarding
performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas (as well as
other areas identified by CNMI to ensure improvement). OSEP's comments
regarding the May 2003 Self-Assessment and the FFY 2002 APR are listed
by cluster area.

## General Supervision

#### Timely Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

In CNMI, the Public School System (PSS) is the State educational agency
(SEA), which is the entity that has general supervisory responsibility
over all educational and early intervention programs for children with
disabilities in CNMI. PSS did not ensure that its programs for children
with disabilities in CNMI, including those administered by any other
public agency, meet CNMI's education standards and Part B requirements,
as required by 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(11) and 34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii). On
page 20 of the Self-Assessment and on page 3 of the APR, CNMI stated
that it did not have a formal, comprehensive monitoring system to
collect and analyze data and monitor for Part B requirements, that there
were monitoring and assessment forms for part B but that those forms
have not been used, that there is no formal internal monitoring or
compliance

process for Part B, and that, as a result, documentation in this area is
limited. On page 3 of the APR, CNMI explained that PSS contracted with
an independent contractor to conduct State monitoring for the 2002-2003
school year and received a draft report from the consultant in April of
2003.

Under 20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3), each SEA must have a mechanism for
monitoring compliance with program requirements, including conducting
on-site monitoring and ensuring timely correction of deficiencies
identified through monitoring. As previously indicated in OSEP's May 13,
2004 informal e-mail to Ms. Joanne Nicholls, CNMI is not in compliance
with this requirement for failure to carry out its monitoring
responsibilities. On page 4 of the APR, CNMI included strategies,
proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines for drafting
appropriate monitoring instruments and procedures, with technical
assistance from the University of Guam, and for installing and
implementing a data management system to collect, analyze, and
disseminate data in order to support CNMI's monitoring responsibilities.
OSEP accepts these strategies and expects CNMI to demonstrate full
compliance in this area within one year of the date of this letter. In
the FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005, CNMI must include data and
analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance, including copies of
its monitoring procedures and checklist addressing all applicable Part B
requirements and a schedule for conducting periodic on-site monitoring,
and submit a report to OSEP demonstrating full compliance, including
documentation of the results of its monitoring activities, as soon as
possible, but not later than 30 days following the end of the one-year
timeline.

#### Monitoring of Out-of-District Placements

Page 28 of the Self-Assessment stated that the PSS monitored placements
at Gallaudet University in Washington, DC and at the Brown Facility in
Texas, but did not supervise out-of-district placements in Hawaii. As
OSEP previously indicated to CNMI in the May 13, 2004 informal e-mail
addressing some of the issues raised in CNMI's Self-Assessment, CNMI may
not be in compliance in this area. Failure to supervise all
out-of-district placements for children with disabilities, including any
out-of-State public or private facilities in which children with
disabilities are placed to ensure the provision of a free appropriate
public education (FAPE), is inconsistent with CNMI's general supervisory
responsibility, including the requirements at 34 CFR §§300.349, and
300.402. As part of the monitoring procedures that CNMI submits to OSEP
in the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include monitoring procedures for
out-of-district placements, including data and information documenting
that CNMI supervises and monitors the provision of FAPE to children with
disabilities in all out-of-district placements, and corrects any
identified noncompliance, within one year of identification.

[Dispute Resolution System Ensures Complaint Investigations, Mediations,
and Due Process Hearings and Reviews Are Completed in a Timely
Manner]{.underline}

Attachment 1 of the APR shows that there were no mediations or due
process hearings since 1999 and that from July 1, 2002 through June 30,
2003, eight complaints were

investigated and resolved within timelines. All eight complaints were
received through the advocacy group, Northern Marianas Protection &
Advocacy Systems, Incorporated. Four of these complaints were found not
within the jurisdiction of CNMI and three were resolved immediately. On
page 5 of the APR, CNMI indicated that from 2001 to 2003, there were a
total of 16 complaints, with only one not resolved within required
timelines. With respect to mediations and due process hearings, data are
not available to indicate whether due process hearings are conducted
within required timelines under 34 CFR §300.511. Regarding State
complaints, CNMI is required to issue its written decision on each Part
B complaint 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 (34 CFR §§300.661(a)(4) and
(b)(1)). In the next APR, CNMI must continue to report on its progress
in ensuring full compliance regarding the issuance of timely complaint
decisions.

[Complaint Decisions Fail to Ensure Timely Correction of Identified
Deficiencies]{.underline}

Page 2 of the APR indicated that complaint procedures did not ensure
that a written decision was issued that addressed each allegation in the
complaint (34 CFR §300.661(a)(4)). Page 6 of the APR indicated, "The
complaint forms including the required elements of responding to a
complaint are not maintained in one binder." Further, "complaint
decisions are in letter format. The letters are not detailed, actual
resolution of complaint is not always clear, and complaint decisions do
not often include corrective action plans" as required by 34 CFR
§300.661(b)(2)(iii). Also, as explained on page 6 of the APR, "the log
and complaint files do not indicate whether the decisions were actually
implemented at the school level." CNMI also stated, "there are no
further complaints or disputes regarding the decisions so it appears
that decisions may have been implemented or the complaint was otherwise
resolved."

In the FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005, CNMI must provide OSEP with
data and analysis to clarify the process it is using for handling formal
complaints, including the steps it is taking to ensure that complaint
decisions address each allegation in the complaint, as well as a
mechanism for ensuring that complaint decisions include timely and
appropriate corrective actions to address identified deficiencies. If
the data demonstrate noncompliance, CNMI must include a plan with
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines designed
to ensure correction of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan. If
data are not available, CNMI must provide an explanation of the steps it
is taking to ensure collection of the data for the FFY 2004 APR.

[Identification of Systemic Issues through Monitoring, Due Process
Hearings, and Complaint Decisions to Impact Systems Change]{.underline}

Page 5 of the APR indicated that in 2001, five of the nine Part B
complaints involved the provision of speech services. On Page 5 of the
APR, CNMI further stated that with respect to systemic change, the
limited number of complaints, the small size of the

program, and the assignment of the complaint investigation indicated
that the special education coordinator was aware of all complaints and,
as needed, took appropriate steps to address the identified
noncompliance. For example, the comprehensive system of personnel
development addressed concerns about the availability of speech
services, even though it appears that the program is still understaffed
in this area. Further, CNMI stated on page 4 of the APR that the lack of
clear documentation, monitoring, and consistent leadership under Part B
has hindered systemic improvement in previous years. In the next APR,
due March 31, 2005, CNMI must provide information demonstrating the
steps it is taking to improve performance and compliance in this area.

#### Structural Issues in Due Process System

On page two of the APR, CNMI stated that the provision of due process
was found to deny parents access due to PSS's structure and procedures
for accessing a hearing officer, and the action required was for PSS to
demonstrate that hearing officers were appropriately trained. On page 2
of the APR, CNMI indicated that two attorneys from Saipan and attorneys
from the University of Guam were trained in special education, but no
further explanation is provided regarding this "access" issue.

In the next APR, due March 31, 2005, CNMI must clarify whether the
attorney training it has conducted is sufficient to ensure that parents
of children with disabilities initiating a Part B due process hearing
have access to a trained hearing officer.

[Sufficient Supply of Personnel to Ensure the Provision of
FAPE]{.underline}

On page 7 of the APR, CNMI reported that there was an overall increase
in special education personnel from a total of 166 in 2000-2001 to 174
in 2002-2003. However, the increase was primarily in teacher aide
positions, with teacher and related service provider positions
decreasing slightly. CNMI continued to be challenged in recruiting
special education and related service providers to meet its diverse
needs and was slightly understaffed in all areas except Early Childhood
Preschool. Page 92 of the Self-Assessment also indicated that the delays
in conducting initial evaluations might be the result of difficulty in
hiring and retraining full-time psychologists.

In the next APR, due March 31, 2005, CNMI must address what effect
personnel shortages are having on the provision of FAPE to children with
disabilities in accordance with their individualized education programs
(IEPs), including data and analysis, along with a determination of
compliance or noncompliance in this area. If data demonstrate
noncompliance, CNMI must include a plan with strategies, proposed
evidence of change, targets, and timelines designed to ensure correction
of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
one year from the date when OSEP accepts the plan. If data are not
available, CNMI must include a plan that describes how CNMI will collect
data to be able to determine compliance or noncompliance in this area
for the FFY 2004 APR.

[Collection and Reporting of Accurate and Timely Data]{.underline}

Page 23 of the Self-Assessment stated that CNMI needed a better method
to collect data. Page 10 of the APR stated that although data have been
collected manually, CNMI plans to develop an electronic data management
system for maintaining and compiling data. In the FFY 2003 APR, OSEP
looks forward to reviewing the results of CNMI's efforts in developing
and utilizing an electronic data collection system.

*Other Areas*

[State Advisory Panel]{.underline}

Page 80 of the Self-Assessment stated that membership on the State
Advisory Panel was not consistent with the requirements at 34 CFR
§300.651, which lists the types of individuals who should be included on
the State Advisory Panel. Page 80 of the Self-Assessment also stated
that the State Advisory Panel was not active since March 2000, and there
was limited activity to re-activate it. This is inconsistent with 34 CFR
§§300.650-300.653, which set out the particular functions of and specify
the membership requirements for the State advisory panel.

CNMI provided strategies on page 16 of the APR for reactivating the
State Advisory Panel and correcting the membership distribution in order
to satisfy the requirements at 34 CFR §300.651. On page 16 of the APR,
CNMI stated that the Special Education Coordinator would: (1) gather
recommendations for possible nominations of parent representatives for
the State Advisory Panel; (2) provide a list of nominees to the CNMI
Board of Education and work with the Board to ensure that parent members
were appointed; (3) facilitate the first quarterly meeting of the State
Advisory Panel; and (4) work closely with the Chair of the State
Advisory Panel to define roles and responsibilities of panel members.
CNMI also included proposed evidence of change and timelines designed to
ensure compliance. OSEP accepts these strategies, and CNMI must
demonstrate compliance within one year of the date of this letter. In
the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include data and analysis demonstrating
progress toward compliance, and submit a report to OSEP demonstrating
compliance as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following the
end of the one-year timeline.

#### Child Find: Initial Evaluations

Page 92 of the Self-Assessment stated that of 227 referrals for initial
evaluation, 84 children had not received a completed evaluation. Delays
of a year or more were evident for some children. These issues indicate
that the child find requirements at 34 CFR §300.125 which require CNMI
to ensure that all children who are in need of special education and
related services are identified, located, and evaluated, and the
requirements at 34 CFR 300.531, requiring a public agency to conduct a
full and individual initial evaluation before the initial provision of
services to eligible children, were not always being implemented. Page
101 of the Self-Assessment indicates that there were only 2 or 3
children evaluated as having behavioral problems, and that improvement
was needed in this area. This suggests that children with behavioral
problems or children with suspected emotional and behavioral problems
may not always be evaluated in a timely manner. As a result, CNMI may
not always be meeting its responsibility to ensure the timely and
appropriate provision of special education and related services to
children with disabilities, as required by 34 CFR §300.300(a)(3).

The FFY 2002 APR did not include strategies, proposed evidence of
change, targets and timelines that would ensure correction of the
noncompliance in CNMI's child find and initial evaluation procedures.
Therefore, CNMI must submit a plan to OSEP in the FFY 2003 APR, due
March 31, 2005, that includes strategies, proposed evidence of change,
targets, and timelines designed to ensure correction of the
noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year
from the date OSEP accepts the plan. The plan must also include: (1)
data and information about the number and dates of referrals of children
for initial evaluation over the past year; (2) information showing the
dates when those evaluations were completed; (3) an analysis of the
availability of personnel to conduct evaluations when referrals are
made; and (4) data and information demonstrating that children with
suspected behavioral and emotional problems are referred and evaluated.

[Translation of Parents' Rights Notices]{.underline}

Page 17 of the Self-Assessment stated that Part B does not provide
written translations of Parents' Rights Notices. Parents of children
with disabilities must be provided with a Parents' Rights notice "in the
language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the
parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so" (34 CFR
§300.503(c)(2)(ii)). On page 18 of the Self-Assessment, CNMI indicated
that parents' rights information should be conveyed simply and in
languages that the parent can understand, and that the notice is not
translated. In the next APR, due March 31, 2005, CNMI must demonstrate
either: (1) that the Parents' Rights notice is translated into the
native language of parents of children with disabilities, or (2) if it
has not been translated, an explanation of why it is clearly not
feasible to do so.

[Interagency Agreements]{.underline}

Page 26 of the Self-Assessment stated that interagency agreements are
out of date.

Under 34 CFR §300.142, States and territories are required to ensure
interagency agreements, or other mechanisms are in effect regarding the
provision and payment for services needed to provide FAPE for children
with disabilities. In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include updated
interagency agreements or other mechanisms to ensure the timely payment
and provision of appropriate special education and related services for
children with disabilities.

***Early Childhood Transition***

Under 34 CFR §300.132(b), children transitioning from Part C to Part B
must have an IEP or an individualized family services plan (IFSP) in
effect by their third birthday. Page 68 of the Self-Assessment stated
that 10% of the children exiting the Part C program, who were eligible
for Part B services, did not receive appropriate special education
services by their third birthdays. Page 11 of the APR provided data
showing that 26% of children who transitioned from Part C to Part B did
not receive appropriate special education and related services by their
third birthdays. However, the APR stated that these data might not be
accurate.

On page 13 of the APR, CNMI stated that it would initiate activities to
facilitate the transition from Part C to Part B, including: (1) the
design and use of a transition checklist; (2) the design of a booklet
explaining the transition process; (3) sharing data between the Part C
and Part B programs; (4) developing a tracking system for the transition
planning conference; and (5) monitoring for the provision of Part B
services for children who transition from Part C to Part B. The
strategies also included evidence of change, targets, and timelines
designed to ensure compliance in this area. OSEP accepts these
strategies. In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include data and analysis
demonstrating progress toward compliance and submit a report to OSEP
demonstrating compliance, as soon as possible, but not later than 30
days following one year from the date of this letter.

OSEP assumes that any Part C to Part B tracking system that CNMI
develops will not involve the disclosure of personally identifiable
information from student's education records or, if it will, that it is
consistent with the IDEA and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA). OSEP has enclosed, for your information, a copy of its
February 11, 2004 letter to Mary Elder, which discusses the limited
disclosure of personally identifiable information for purposes of
meeting IDEA's child find mandate.

#### Parent Involvement

Page 15 of the Self-Assessment stated that due to low return of the
parent survey, data needed to determine parent training needs and the
percentage of parents actively participating at IEP meetings was not
available. Page 76 of the Self-Assessment stated that there was a low
rate of return on the parent surveys, but that parent surveys and IEP
record reviews showed that 80% of parents participated in their child's
IEP meeting. On page 16 of the APR, CNMI stated that the Special
Education Coordinator will conduct a parent training needs assessment
and facilitate an orientation program for new parents and family
members, and stated that CNMI will develop a system to document parent
participation at IEP meetings. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the
results of these strategies in the next APR.

***Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive
Environment***

#### Disproportionality

On page 17 of the APR, CNMI provided race/ethnicity data showing that
almost all children with disabilities who received special education
services were in the category "Asian/Pacific Islander." CNMI also
provided a breakout of the "Asian/Pacific Islander" category by the
ethnic groups represented in the general school population and in
special education.

###### Graduation and Drop-out Rates

The instructions to this cluster ask States and territories to provide
information on the graduation rates and drop-out rates for children with
disabilities as compared with those for nondisabled children. On pages
20 and 21 of the APR, CNMI provided data and information regarding high
school graduation rates and drop-out rates. The graduation rate of
students with disabilities has increased from 29.8% in 1998 to 64.2% in
2003. This compares to the increase in the general school population
from 74.9% to 91.5% for the same time period.

On page 21 of the APR, CNMI indicated that the CNMI Board of Education
does not have a policy that relates to the definition of dropouts and
procedures for addressing those identified as dropouts. For school year
2002-2003, the drop-out rate was 2.58% for the general population and
3.03% for students with disabilities. On page 21 of the APR, CNMI stated
that procedures for collecting these data needed improvement because
CNMI School Board policies regarding graduation and drop-out criteria
were not consistent, and there was a lack of a formal centralized system
to track graduation and drop-out data. CNMI provided targets,
explanations for slippage, activities and timelines to improve the
collection and analysis of this data.

In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include data and analysis, along with the
results of its strategies to ensure improved performance in this area.

###### Suspension and Expulsion

On pages 20 and 21 of the APR, CNMI provided data and information
regarding suspension and expulsion rates. On page 21 of the APR, CNMI
stated that for school year 2002-2003, 12.66% (1,336 out of 10,554) of
students without disabilities were suspended, whereas 2.04% (12 out of
588) represented students with disabilities suspended. Although the
percentage for students with disabilities continues to be lower when
compared to students without disabilities, the percentages for both
groups have increased from previous years.

On page 21 of the APR, CNMI indicated that procedures for collecting
these data needed improvement because there was a lack of a formal
centralized system to track suspension and expulsion data. CNMI provided
targets, explanations for slippage, activities and timelines to improve
the collection and analysis of this data. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing the results of this improved data collection in the next APR.

[Participation and Performance of Children with Disabilities on
State-Wide Assessments]{.underline}

States and territories are required to ensure that children with
disabilities are included in general State- and district-wide assessment
programs with appropriate accommodations and modifications in
administration, if necessary (34 CFR §§300.138 and 300.347(a)(5)). On
page 104 of the Self-Assessment, CNMI stated that the PSS did not have a
method for ensuring that each school used appropriate modifications and
accommodations when they were needed by children with disabilities to
participate in State-wide assessments. Page 104 of the Self-Assessment
also states that the administration of State-wide assessment for
students with disabilities follow the same guidelines for students
without disabilities, which may indicate that modifications in
administration are not provided in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.138 and
300.347(a)(5). This is inconsistent with information in CNMI's biennial
performance report, dated June 27, 2002, which stated the PSS provided
appropriate modifications and accommodations when they were needed for
general assessments. On page 106 of the Self-Assessment, CNMI noted that
the alternate assessment used, which is the Brigance, may not be able to
fully assess the achievement and progress of students with disabilities,
and there stands a need to explore other alternate assessment
instruments to ensure alignment with the approved standards and
benchmarks for all tested grades.

In the FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005, CNMI must either provide: (1)
documentation that students with disabilities are receiving appropriate
accommodations and modifications in administration of general State
assessments, if needed, or (2) if needed accommodations and
modifications in administration are not being provided, a plan to ensure
correction of the noncompliance within 30 days following one year from
the date of this letter. In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must also provide an
explanation of whether its alternate assessment instruments are aligned
with standards used for all children in the grade assessed, and if they
are not, the steps CNMI is taking to ensure alignment of alternate
assessments with appropriate achievement standards in the FFY 2004 APR.

Children with Disabilities Are Educated with Nondisabled Peers to the
Maximum Extent Appropriate

Although the Self-Assessment addressed participation in nonacademic and
extracurricular activities, CNMI did not provide data regarding the
number of children with disabilities participating in nonacademic and
extracurricular activities with their nondisabled peers (see pages 106
and 107 of the Self-Assessment). Under 34 CFR §300.553, PSS must ensure
that children with disabilities participate in nonacademic and
extracurricular activities with their nondisabled peers. Each child's
IEP also must contain a statement regarding the child's participation in
nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities (34 CFR
§300.347(a)(3)-(4)).

In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include data and analysis, along with a
determination of compliance or noncompliance in meeting the requirements
at 34 CFR §300.553, including data about any barriers to such
participation, such as lack of transportation. If the data demonstrate
noncompliance, CNMI must include a plan with strategies, proposed
evidence of change, targets, and timelines designed to ensure correction
of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
one year from the date when OSEP accepts the plan. If data are not
available, CNMI must include a plan that describes how CNMI will collect
data to be able to determine compliance or noncompliance in this area in
the FFY 2004 APR.

On page 23 of the APR, CNMI stated that children with disabilities spend
more time in the general education classroom than the national average,
and that preschool children with disabilities are in full inclusion
settings. We look forward to reviewing information about CNMI's
performance in this area in the FFY 2003 APR, due March 31, 2005.

Improvement of Language/Communication, Pre-reading, and Social-Emotional
Skills of Preschool Children with Disabilities

CNMI stated, on page 23 of the APR, that data on early
language/communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional skills of
preschool children with disabilities were not readily available. On page
23 of the APR, CNMI stated that children with disabilities who
participated in preschool activities performed better on the first-grade
diagnostic evaluation. However, since there were no kindergarten
requirements in CNMI, language deficits were not diagnosed prior to the
first grade. PSS services preschool children in the Head Start program.
CNMI provided explanations of slippage, activities, timelines, and
resources, and on page 24 of the APR, CNMI provided a target to
establish a mechanism for assessing improvement in the skills of
preschool children with disabilities by August 2004.

In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI should either submit documentation of data
(whether collected through sampling, monitoring, individual IEP review,
or other methods), targets for improved performance, and strategies to
achieve those targets for this area or a plan to collect the data for
the FFY 2004 APR, including a detailed timeline of the activities
necessary to implement that plan.

## Secondary Transition

[Secondary Transition Data]{.underline}

The instructions to this cluster ask States and territories to indicate
whether the percentage of students with disabilities participating in
post-school activities (e.g., employment, education, etc.) is comparable
to that of nondisabled children. Page 118 of the Self-Assessment stated
that there were insufficient data to indicate whether: (1) transition
services were included in IEPs (see 34 CFR §300.347(b)); (2) staff from
outside agencies who may be responsible for providing or paying for
needed transition services were invited to participate in the IEP
meeting (see 34 CFR §300.344(b)(3)); (3) whether interagency agreements
regarding the provision of services were implemented (see 34 CFR
§300.142); or (4) whether transition services were provided to children
with disabilities in accordance with their IEPs (see 34 CFR §300.348).
Page 119 of the Self-Assessment stated that data were not sufficient to
verify whether youth with disabilities participated in transition
planning (34 CFR §300.344(b)(1)). Without these data, CNMI cannot
demonstrate compliance with the Part B secondary transition requirements
at 34 CFR §§300.344(b), 300.347(b) and 300.348.

In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include data and analysis, along with a
determination of compliance or noncompliance with the requirements at 34
CFR §§300.344(b), 300.347(b) and 300.348. If data demonstrate
noncompliance, CNMI must include a plan with strategies, proposed
evidence of change, targets, and timelines designed to ensure correction
of the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed
one year from the date when OSEP accepts the plan. If data are not
available, CNMI must include a plan that describes how CNMI will collect
data to enable it to determine compliance or noncompliance in this area
in the FFY 2004 APR.

## Conclusion

In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must include data and analysis demonstrating
progress toward compliance, and submit a report to OSEP demonstrating
compliance as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following one
year from the date of this letter:

-   implementing a formal and comprehensive monitoring system. CNMI also
    must provide OSEP with copies of the monitoring instruments,
    checklist, procedures and monitoring schedule, including
    documentation of monitoring activities, including monitoring
    procedures for out-of-district placements, and evidence that CNMI
    corrects any identified noncompliance within one year of
    identification (34 CFR §300.600 and 20 U.S.C. 1232);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   implementing the requirements at 34 CFR §§300.650-300.653 regarding
    the State Advisory Panel, including membership requirements; and

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ensuring that children transitioning from the Part C to the Part B
    program have an IEP or an IFSP in effect by their third birthdays,
    consistent with 34 CFR §300.132.

CNMI must submit a plan to OSEP in the FFY 2003 APR, including
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and timelines designed
to ensure correction of noncompliance within a reasonable period of
time, not to exceed one year from the date OSEP accepts the plan, in the
following area:

-   implementing the requirements at 34 CFR §§300.125, 300.300, and
    300.531 for providing a complete, individual evaluation in a timely
    manner for each child who is identified and referred for a Part B
    evaluation. The plan must also include: (1) data and information
    about the number and dates of referrals of children for initial
    evaluation over the past year; (2) information showing the dates
    when those evaluations were completed; (3) an analysis of the
    availability of personnel to conduct evaluations when referrals are
    made; and (4) data and information demonstrating that children with
    behavioral problems or children with suspected emotional and
    behavioral problems are referred and evaluated.

In the FFY 2003 APR, CNMI must provide data and analysis, along with a
determination of compliance in the following areas. If data demonstrate
noncompliance, CNMI must submit a plan to OSEP to ensure correction of
the noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one
year from the date that OSEP accepts the plan. If data are not
available, the FFY 2003 APR must include a plan describing how CNMI will
collect the data to determine compliance or noncompliance:

-   the process that is used to handle formal complaints and ensure the
    timely issuance of complaint decisions with implementation of
    appropriate corrective actions (34 CFR §§300.660-300.662);

-   supplying adequate qualified staff to provide FAPE (see 34 CFR
    §§300.300 and 300.381);

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   providing documentation that students with disabilities are
    receiving appropriate accommodations and modifications in
    administration of general State assessments, if needed (34 CFR
    §§300.138 and 300.347(a)(5));

-   providing an explanation of whether CNMI's alternate assessment
    instruments are aligned with standards used for all children in the
    grade assessed, and if they are not, the steps CNMI is taking to
    ensure alignment of alternate assessments with appropriate
    achievement standards in the FFY 2004 APR;

-   implementing transition planning and services for youth with
    disabilities, including the requirement at 34 CFR §300.344(b)(1)
    requiring the public agency to invite a student with a disability to
    attend IEP meetings conducted to consider transition service needs
    or needed transition services; and

-   ensuring the participation of children with disabilities in
    nonacademic and extracurricular activities with their nondisabled
    peers, to the maximum extent appropriate, or explain why this is not
    occurring and what will be done to correct it (34 CFR §300.553).

CNMI also must provide in the FFY 2003 APR:

-   Written translations of Parents' Rights notices in the native
    language of the parent, or if not provided, an explanation of why it
    is clearly not feasible to do so (34 CFR §300.503(c)(1)(ii));

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Copies of updated interagency agreements, or describe other
    mechanisms used to ensure the timely payment and provision of
    appropriate special education and related services to children with
    disabilities (34 CFR §300.142);

-   Clarification of whether the attorney training it has done is
    sufficient to ensure that parents of children with disabilities
    initiating a Part B due process hearing have access to a trained
    hearing officer;

-   Either documentation of data, targets for improved performance and
    strategies to achieve those targets concerning improvement in the
    language/communication, pre-reading and social-emotional skills of
    preschool children with disabilities, or a detailed plan to collect
    that data for the FFY 2004 APR; and

-   The results of CNMI's efforts in developing and utilizing an
    electronic data collection system, and a system for parent training
    and increasing parental participation in IEP meetings.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in CNMI, and we look forward to collaborating with
you as you continue to improve results for children and youth with
disabilities and their families. If you have questions, please contact
Lucille Sleger at (202) 245-7528.

Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard for

Stephanie Smith Lee

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosure

cc: Ms. Joanne Nicholls, Coordinator

######### Special Education Programs