February 28, 2005

Honorable Terry Bergeson

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Washington State Office of Public Instruction

Old Capitol Building

P.O. Box 47200

Olympia, Washington 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Bergeson:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to Washington's April 1, 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 the State during
the reporting period, compared to established objectives. The APR for
IDEA is designed to provide uniform reporting from States and result in
high quality information across States.

The APR is a significant data source utilized in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) implemented by the
Office of Special Education Programs (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 the CIFMS into one document.
OSEP's Memorandum regarding the submission of Part B APRs directed
States to address five cluster areas: General Supervision; Early
Childhood Transition; Parent Involvement; Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment; and Secondary
Transition.

# Background

The December 1999 OSEP Monitoring Report and the December 2001 OSEP
Improvement Plan Progress Report letter identified nine areas of
noncompliance, including: (1) children with disabilities in need of
psychological counseling services to benefit from special education were
not always provided these services through the Individualized Education
Program (IEP) process at no cost to the parents under the direction and
supervision of the public agency; (2) shortages of qualified staff in
occupational therapy, physical therapy and teachers of children with
behavior disorders, resulted in failure to provide services appropriate
to the unique needs of a child and delays in the provision of required
services; (3) parents were not always included as participants in
evaluations; (4) parents were not included in the multidisciplinary team
that made placement decisions; (5) students with disabilities were not
always invited to IEP meetings when the purpose was the consideration of
needed transition services; (6) public agencies did not routinely invite
to IEP meetings representatives of other agencies that were likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for needed transition services; (7)
the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) did not
ensure that youth with disabilities in adult correctional facilities
were provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE); (8) the OSPI
monitoring system did not ensure consistent implementation of Part B
requirements; and (9) OSPI's monitoring system did not incorporate the
changes necessary to evaluate compliance with the IDEA Amendments of
1997.

In response to the noncompliance, Washington submitted an Improvement
Plan in March 2002 and an updated Improvement Plan in March 2004, along
with its FFY 2002 APR. This letter will respond to any outstanding
issues that have been identified in Washington's Improvement Plan as
well as the contents of Washington's FFY 2002 APR. Washington also
submitted a report in June 2004 detailing the results of its first
complete monitoring cycle. This report included monitoring data from 289
districts and 4,400 individual student files covering years 2000-2001
through 2002-2003.

OSEP conducted a visit to Washington during the week of September 20,
2004 to verify the effectiveness of the State's systems for general
supervision, State-wide assessment, and data collection under section
618 of IDEA. The results of this visit have been provided to the State
in a separate letter issued today, and where appropriate, results of the
verification visit are referenced in this letter.

The State'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 any
other areas identified by the State to ensure improvement). OSEP's
comments are listed by cluster area.

# General Supervision

[Timely Identification and Correction of Noncompliance]{.underline}.
Under 34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii) and 20 U.S.C. §1232d, States are
required to have monitoring procedures that identify areas of
noncompliance and ensure timely correction of deficiencies identified
through monitoring. Washington reported on page 2 of Cluster I of the
APR on its implementation of strategies and activities to correct the
finding that the State's monitoring system was ineffective in addressing
actual practices, evaluating compliance with the IDEA Amendments of
1997, and correcting identified deficiencies. On pages 1 through 9 of
Cluster I of the APR, the State included data and analysis that
demonstrated correction of this noncompliance. Information on page 2 of
Cluster I of the APR concerned the State review and analysis of 289 of
the 296 districts and 4,400 individual student files for the 2000-2003
school years. On page 2 of Cluster I of the APR, OSPI explained that the
Consolidated Program Review (CPR) process for special education adopted
by OSPI during the 2000--2001 school year facilitates the identification
and correction of noncompliance, using 18 core areas with corresponding
indicators of compliance. The 18 core areas include: (1) policies; (2)
procedures; (3) Section 504; (4) community involvement; (5) procedural
safeguards; (6) private schools; (7) Family Education Rights and Privacy
Act; (8) child find; (9) staff development; (10) complaints and due
process; (11) special education State and Federal funds; (12) Medicaid
funds; (13) continuum of educational placements; (14) IEP
implementation; (15) free appropriate public education; (16) related
services; (17) parent participation; and (18) transition. The State
explained on page 2 of Cluster I of the APR that core areas 1 through 12
focus on the district\'s administrative policy and procedures in the
implementation of special education and related services. Core areas 13
through 18 focus on the implementation of individual student programs
and on-site observations and interviews with staff necessary to verify
the information found in the files.

The State undertook the strategies and activities it identified to
address this area of noncompliance, and OSEP appreciates the work of the
State in this regard. Although the information provided by the State
indicates that the State's monitoring system complies with Part B
insofar as OSPI has implemented a system for identifying deficiencies
with applicable Part B requirements, OSEP has determined, based on the
verification visit, that OSPI fails to ensure timely correction of
identified noncompliance affecting specific students, as addressed more
fully in the verification letter. As indicated on page 2 of Cluster I of
the APR, OSPI indicated that upon receipt of the final report, the
district may challenge the findings. However, once the challenged
findings are reconciled, the district is required to develop and
implement an agreed upon corrective action plan, as necessary.

As OSEP found during the verification visit, and as described in the
verification letter, OSPI does not have procedures for ensuring
correction of identified noncompliance affecting specific students
within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year of
identification. OSEP expects Washington to develop a procedure to ensure
timely correction of deficiencies identified through monitoring that
affect specific students. In the next APR, due April 29, 2005, in
accordance with the measures set out in the verification letter,
Washington must submit a plan that includes strategies, proposed
evidence of change, targets and timelines that will ensure correction of
identified noncompliance within a reasonable period of time, not to
exceed one year from the date that OSEP accepts the plan. In the next
APR, due April 29, 2005, OSPI must submit data and analysis
demonstrating progress toward compliance, including copies of monitoring
procedures demonstrating timely correction of noncompliance involving
specific students, and provide a report to OSEP with documentation of
compliance as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days following the
one-year timeline.

## Services for Youth with Disabilities in Adult Correctional Facilities. OSEP's response to Washington's March 2002 Improvement Plan requested that the State include, in its revised Improvement Plan, information regarding the State's compliance with 34 CFR §300.311. Page 9 of the March 2004 Improvement Plan included the State's report that Washington services for youth with disabilities incarcerated in adult correctional facilities were, with certain exceptions, consistent with 34 CFR §300.311 and with: (1) the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 28A 193; (2) the Washington State Supreme Court decision in *Tunstall v. Bergeson,* 5 P.3d 691 (W.A. 2000) cert. Denied, 121 S. Ct. 1356 (2001); and (3) the assignment of responsibilities for Part B to the Department of Corrections for youth with disabilities aged 18 through 21 and convicted as adults and incarcerated in adult prisons, consistent with Governor Lock's directive of March 9, 2001. Also on page 9 of the Improvement Plan, the State reported that Washington's revised monitoring process includes on-site verification of whether services are being provided to youth with disabilities in the adult correctional facilities that serve eligible students. The State completed the strategies it identified in its Improvement Plan of March 2004. OSEP appreciates the work of the State in ensuring that youth with disabilities in adult correctional facilities receive the special education and related services for which they are eligible under Federal and State law.

[Dispute Resolution System Ensures that Complaint Investigations and Due
Process Hearings Are Completed in a Timely Manner]{.underline}. In the
FFY 2002 APR, data and information indicated the following areas of
noncompliance not previously identified by OSEP: State complaint
procedures did not ensure that a written decision was issued within 60
days from the date of receipt of the complaint, unless the timeline was
extended due to exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular
complaint (34 CFR §300.661(a)(4) and (b)). Data on page 15 of Attachment
1 of the APR identified that 73 complaints were filed during the FFY
2002 APR reporting period. Approximately 22 percent (16) of the
complaints filed were not completed within 60 days from the date of
receipt of the complaint, and there was no evidence that the timeline
was extended due to exceptional circumstances with respect to a
particular complaint. In addition, States must ensure that a final due
process hearing decision is reached, and a copy mailed to each of the
parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the hearing request,
unless the hearing officer grants a specific extension of this timeline
at the request of either party (34 CFR §300.511). Data on page 16 of
Attachment 1 of the APR identified 162 request for hearings, of which 32
were fully adjudicated, and 7 had decisions issued after applicable
timelines, including after any extensions that had been granted.
Approximately 21 percent of the cases fully adjudicated had decisions
issued after timelines and extensions expired. On page 14 of Cluster I
of the APR, the State reported the following strategies regarding these
issues: (a) alignment of the due process and complaint databases to
track extension requests; (b) building prompts into the due process and
complaint databases to ensure awareness of deadlines; and (c) involving
staff from Special Education Operations, OSPI Legal Services and the
Administrative Law Judges to revise the current due process and hearing
systems and implement changes. The State submitted an Improvement Plan
as part of its FFY 2002 APR. OSEP accepts these strategies, and expects
the State to demonstrate full compliance in this area not later than one
year from the date of this letter. In the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29,
2005, the State must include data and analysis demonstrating progress
toward compliance and submit a report to OSEP with documentation of
compliance as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following the
end of the one-year timeline.

[A Sufficient Supply of Personnel Available to Meet the Needs of All
Children with Disabilities]{.underline}. The 1999 OSEP Monitoring Report
identified noncompliance related to 34 CFR §§300.300 and 300.380(a)(2),
which require each State to develop and implement a comprehensive system
of personnel development designed to ensure an adequate supply of
qualified special education and related services personnel. The 1999
OSEP Monitoring Report found that personnel shortages in all of the
districts monitored were negatively affecting the ability of districts
to provide FAPE to children with disabilities, particularly children in
need of physical and occupational therapy services, and children with
severe behavior disorders. On pages 17 and 18 of Cluster I of the APR,
the State included data indicating an increase in fully certified staff
in every personnel category and provided several strategies tied to the
goals of the State Improvement Grant (SIG) during the 2002--2003
reporting period. These strategies included: (1) incentives to encourage
study in special education; (2) implementation and impact of
research-based instructional models; (3) alternate paths to
certification; (4) school district and university partnerships; (5)
training institutes; (6) an in-service clearinghouse; and (7) the
development of a mentoring module.

Although OSPI provided data that showed an increase in personnel, OSEP
could not determine whether the noncompliance identified in OSEP's 1999
Monitoring Report has been corrected. OSEP received additional data in
OSPI's June 2004 Consolidated Program Review letter. On page five of
Attachment 2 of the letter, the State reported that during the 2000-2003
monitoring cycle, 4,400 special education student files were reviewed.
Of these files, 1,491 had evaluations that recommended IEP goals and
specially designed instruction for behavior. Monitoring results
documented that 486 of these children (32.6% or 11% of the total files
reviewed) were not receiving specially designed instruction for behavior
as recommended in the evaluation. The State submitted an Improvement
Plan and additional supporting data in the June 2004 letter to correct
the noncompliance identified in this area. OSEP accepts the June 2004
Improvement Plan and the strategies included in the FFY 2002 APR, and
expects the State to demonstrate full compliance in this area within one
year from the date of this letter. In the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29,
2005, Washington must submit data and analysis documenting progress in
ensuring that children in need of specially designed instruction for
behavior disorders are receiving required specially designed
instruction, despite shortages of qualified staff, and provide to OSEP a
report with data and analysis demonstrating compliance as soon as
possible, but no later than thirty days following the end of the
one-year timeline.

From data and information provided by the State in the FFY 2002 APR,
OSEP could not determine whether OSPI has corrected the noncompliance
identified in the 1999 OSEP monitoring report regarding the provision of
physical therapy and occupational therapy services for children in need
of those services. In the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29, 2005, Washington
must submit data and analysis indicating whether the State has corrected
the noncompliance previously identified in this area. Examples of this
data can include monitoring data, IFSP/IEP review, etc. If data
demonstrate noncompliance, OSPI must submit a plan for correction of
this noncompliance, including strategies, proposed evidence of change,
targets, and timelines to correct this noncompliance as soon as
possible, but not later than thirty days from the date of OSEP's
approval of the plan.

[Other Area: Psychological Counseling Services]{.underline}. The 1999
OSEP Monitoring Report identified noncompliance related to 34 CFR
§300.300(a)(3), which requires public agencies to provide in a timely
manner any related services, including psychological counseling, at no
cost to the parents, that children with disabilities may need to benefit
from special education. According to page 23 of OSEP\'s December 1999
Monitoring Report, parents were required at times to pay for
psychological counseling services deemed necessary by the IEP team,
psychological services were not available to high school students
regardless of need, there were delays in the provision of services for
some students, and type and amount of psychological services were
limited based on category of disability. On page one of Attachment 1 of
the June 2004 monitoring report, the State reported that during the
2000-2003 monitoring cycle, 4,400 special education student files were
reviewed. Page 1 of the June 2004 Improvement Plan Progress Report
indicated 2,151 files (48.9% of the 4,400 special education student
files) involved a related service, and 348 of those files involved
psychological counseling. Monitoring results documented on page 1 of the
June 2004 progress report indicated that 120 of the 348 students (34.5%)
were not receiving needed psychological counseling services.

The State submitted an Improvement Plan in March 2004 and additional
supporting data in a progress report in June 2004 with strategies to
correct this noncompliance, including: (1) identifying student needs and
how to address those needs on the evaluation and IEP; (2) identifying
the service provider on the IEP summary page; (3) adding additional
psychologists and counselors; (4) adding a field for counseling in
district databases; (5) district-wide training in which all staff
reviewed files for the link between evaluation, IEP, delivery of
instruction, and related services; and (6) training and review for
building teams surrounding the scope of related service delivery. OSEP
accepts the strategies in the Improvement Plan, and expects the State to
demonstrate full compliance in this area within one year from the date
of this letter. In the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29, 2005, the State must
submit data and analysis documenting progress in ensuring that all
children in need of psychological counseling services are receiving
those services in a timely manner in accordance with their IEPs at no
cost to the parents (34 CFR §300.300(a)(3)), and provide to OSEP a
report demonstrating compliance as soon as possible, but no later than
thirty days following the end of the one-year timeline.

[Collection and Reporting of Accurate and Timely Data]{.underline}. On
page 24 of Cluster I of the APR, Washington reported the strategies that
it had put in place to ensure the accurate and timely submission of
data. Those strategies included: (1) an annual data collection bulletin
including all Federal special education reporting requirements,
timelines, forms and instructions; (2) child count data submission
requirements that require submission of the data to OSPI by the third
week of December and entry of the data by the Special Education Data
Manager and the Special Education Fiscal Plans Analyst; (3) personnel
data collection that requires submission of the data by the end of May;
and (4) State requirements for submission of suspension and expulsion
data 30 days after the end of the school year. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing the resulting data and OSPI's analysis of this data in the FFY
2003 APR, due April 29, 2005.

# Early Childhood Transition

The instructions to this cluster ask States to determine whether
children participating in the Part C program who are eligible for Part B
services have an IEP or IFSP in effect by their third birthday, as
required by 34 CFR §300.132(b). Based on the data and information
included in the APR, the State acknowledged an area of potential
noncompliance with 34 CFR §300.132(b) not previously identified by OSEP.
On page one of Cluster II of the APR, the State explained, "that for
preschool children determined eligible for Part B services, there is
currently no method or process in place to assess if all \[eligible\]
children leaving the Part C program are receiving special education and
related services by their third birthday" because the system does not
track data about individual children. On page 2 of Cluster II of the
APR, the State included strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets
and timelines to ensure compliance with 34 CFR §300.132(b).

The State also included the following strategies in the Improvement Plan
on page two of Cluster II of the APR submitted as part of the FFY 2002
APR: (1) implementation of a data sharing agreement between Part B
(OSPI) and Part C (Department of Social and Health Services); (2)
implementation of a common child identifier system that creates a data
link between the Part C infant and toddler data system and the K-12 core
student record system. OSEP accepts the Improvement Plan and the
strategies included in the FFY 2002 APR, and expects the State to
demonstrate full compliance in this area within one year from the date
of this letter. In the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29, 2005, the State must
include data and analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance with
34 CFR §300.132(b) and provide a report to OSEP, with data and analysis
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 Washington
develops will not involve the disclosure of personally identifiable
information from students' 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, Executive Director, Texas
Interagency Council on Early Childhood Intervention, which discusses the
limited disclosure of personally identifiable information for purposes
of meeting IDEA's child find mandate.

# Parent Involvement

In Cluster III of the APR, Washington reported data and analysis that
demonstrated Washington's progress in correction of noncompliance
previously identified in OSEP's 1999 Monitoring Report and December 2001
Improvement Plan letter in the following areas: (1) parents did not have
the opportunity to participate as part of the group that reviewed
existing data as part of initial evaluation or reevaluation of their
child as required by 34 CFR §300.533(a)(2)(i); and (2) parents were not
included in the multidisciplinary team that makes the child's placement
decision as required by 34 CFR §300.501(c). On page 1 of Cluster III of
the APR, the State reported that: (1) as part of its monitoring process,
parent surveys were sent to 10 percent of the population of children
with disabilities in the districts monitored; (2) data indicated that 96
percent of the parents surveyed were invited to their child's evaluation
meeting to discuss the evaluation and received a copy of the evaluation
report; and (3) the 2004 Improvement Plan chart documented State
regulation changes implemented in January 2000 that made parent
participation in the evaluation and reevaluation process a required
activity rather than an optional activity. OSEP appreciates the work of
the State in ensuring compliance with these requirements. Washington
must continue to report in the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29, 2005, on its
progress in ensuring full compliance in this area.

With regard to parent participation in the multidisciplinary team that
makes placement decisions, (34 CFR §300.501(c)(1)), the State included
data on page 1 of Cluster III of the APR indicating that, based on 755
responses to 2,460 parent surveys, parents were included in placement
decisions related to the IEP approximately 89 percent of the time.
Monitoring data supported the findings of the parent survey. Monitoring
data on page 3 of Cluster I of the APR indicated that monitoring
violations related to parent participation occurred in only 2 percent of
the districts State-wide. The APR included strategies and targets to
continue to increase parent participation. OSEP accepts these
strategies. Washington must continue to report in the next APR on its
progress in ensuring full compliance with this requirement.

# Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment

[Disproportionality]{.underline}. In Attachment 2 of the APR, Washington
identified disproportionality in the following ethnic groups and
disability categories: [^1]

1.  Black children with: specific learning disabilities, 0.50 percent;
    mental retardation, 0.72 percent; and emotional disturbance, 1.25
    percent;

2.  Hispanic children with: mental retardation, 0.27 percent; and
    hearing impairments, 0.26 percent; and

3.  American Indian children with: specific learning disabilities, 0.59
    percent; mental retardation, 0.73 percent; hearing impairments, 0.22
    percent; and emotional disturbance, 0.56 percent.

On page 2 of Cluster IV of the APR, OSPI indicated only that it intended
to meet and discuss disproportionality with the Washington State
Association of School Psychologists. The State did not include specific
timelines for convening the meeting or intended outcomes of the meeting.
Further, the State did not indicate that it would review State policies,
procedures or practices as a result of the meeting to determine if
revisions were necessary.

The Part B regulation at 34 CFR §300.755 requires States that identify
significant disproportionality on the basis of race in the
identification of children with disabilities (including identification
within particular categories of disability) or in placements into
particular settings to provide for the review and, if appropriate,
revision of the policies, procedures and practices used in
identification or placement to ensure that they comply with Part B. In
the next APR, due April 29, 2005, Washington must report not just on its
procedures for review of LEAs with significant disproportionality, but
on the results of the review, and if appropriate, revision of policies,
procedures and practices that occurred during the reporting period. If
the State does not include information in the FFY 2003 APR indicating
that the State, when it identifies significant disproportionality, has
either conducted a review of policies, procedures, and practices used in
identification or placement of children with disabilities or otherwise
ensured that such a review was done, OSEP will conclude that the State
is not complying with the regulation.

[Graduation and Drop-out Rates]{.underline}. On pages 3 through 10 of
Cluster IV of the APR, the State included data and analysis identifying
the State's special education graduation and drop-out rates for the
2001-2002 reporting period. The State's graduation rate calculated from
data on page 3 through 10 of Cluster IV of the APR for the reporting
period July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, was 52 percent. The State
target rate was 73 percent. The State's drop-out rate reported in the
APR for the 2001-2002 reporting period was 41 percent. The State
submitted strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets, and
timelines, to improve performance and ensure compliance in this area.
OSEP looks forward to reviewing information in the next APR that
includes both implementation of those strategies and the resulting data
demonstrating improvement.

[Suspension and Expulsion]{.underline}. From data and information
provided in the APR, OSEP could not determine performance or compliance
with regard to suspension and expulsion of children with disabilities.
On page 11 in Cluster IV of the APR, the State reported data that
indicated the suspension rates for children identified as needing
special education services by disability and race/ethnicity categories.
The breakdown on page 11 of Cluster IV of the APR did not indicate if
there was a discrepancy in suspension or expulsion across local
educational agencies (LEAs) or compared to the rate for children without
disabilities, as required by 34 CFR §300.146. Page 12 of this cluster
included activities that, if implemented, should assist the State in
this effort including: (1) incorporating data systems between the Safe
and Civil Schools Section of OSPI and the Special Education Operations
section; (2) involvement of the Special Education Advisory Council in
review and analysis of data; and (3) if needed, the addition of a
subcommittee or researcher who will work to promote improvement in this
area. OSEP looks forward to reviewing the results of these strategies in
the FFY 2003 APR.

34 CFR §300.146 requires that States examine data to determine if
significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term
suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities either among
LEAs in the State or compared to the rates for nondisabled children
within the agencies. Where the State determines that significant
discrepancies are occurring, it must review and, if appropriate, revise
(or require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies,
procedures and practices relating to the development and implementation
of individualized education programs (IEPs), the use of behavioral
interventions, and procedural safeguards to ensure that the policies,
procedures and practices comply with Part B. The instructions to the
2002 APR direct States to describe which of these comparisons it did, as
well as the method the State used to determine possible discrepancies,
what constitutes a discrepancy, the number of agencies with significant
discrepancies, and, if significant discrepancies are occurring, a
description of those discrepancies and how the State plans to address
them.

Washington's 2002 APR, however, did not include specific information
indicating that the State had examined data from the LEAs that it used
in assembling the State level data to determine whether significant
discrepancies were occurring in the LEAs based on either one of the
comparisons described above. In the next APR, the State must include the
information required by the instructions. If the 2003 APR does not
include information indicating that the State has examined all data for
all LEAs to determine whether significant discrepancies are occurring in
the LEAs based on one of the comparisons described above, and that when
it identifies significant discrepancies, it reviews, and if appropriate,
revises (or requires the affected LEAs to revise) policies, procedures,
and practices consistent with 34 CFR §300.146, then OSEP will conclude
that the State is not complying with the regulation.

[Participation of Children with Disabilities in State-wide and
District-wide Assessments]{.underline}. On pages 15 through 26 in
Cluster IV of the APR, OSPI reported on the performance and
participation of children with disabilities on State-wide assessments.
OSPI concluded that there continued to be large gaps between the
academic performance of children with disabilities and children without
disabilities. OSPI reported that children with disabilities, except
children with parental exemptions[^2], or children who were absent the
day of the test, participated in the math and reading regular assessment
or alternate assessment. Enrollment data indicated that there were the
following numbers of students with IEPs: (1) in the 4^th^ grade, 10,061
took the math assessment and 10,067 took the reading assessment; (2) in
the 7^th^ grade, 9,651 took the math assessment and 9,652 took the
reading assessment; and (3) in the 10^th^ grade, 7,441 took the math
assessment and 7,425 took the reading assessment. Approximately 6
percent of children with IEPs in the 4^th^ grade, 4 percent of children
with IEPs in the 7^th^ grade, and 4.7 percent of children with IEPs in
the 10^th^ grade took the math alternate assessment. At the high school
level (10^th^ grade), children identified as absent or exempt from
taking the regular or alternate assessment accounted for 10 percent of
the 10^th^ grade enrollment data for the math assessment. Approximately
6.6 percent of the children with IEPs in the 4^th^ grade, 4 percent of
the children with IEPs in the 7^th^ grade, and 4 percent of the children
in the 10^th^ grade took the reading alternate assessment. At the high
school level (10^th^ grade), children identified as absent or exempt
from taking the regular or alternate assessment accounted for 11 percent
of the 10^th^ grade enrollment data for the reading assessment. In
addition, there were a large number of students whose scores were not
valid for the reading and math assessments in grade 10. In the reading
assessment, 32.4 percent of the scores were not valid and in the math
assessment 20 percent of the scores were not valid.

OSPI provided strategies for improving performance of children with
disabilities. Examples provided on page 15 of Cluster IV of the APR
include: (1) continuing to develop appropriate alternate assessments for
children in special education programs; (2) increasing the supply of
highly qualified special education personnel; and (3) increasing the
distribution of professional development materials targeting
instructional adaptations for children. OSEP looks forward to reviewing
the results of these strategies in the next APR.

[Children with Disabilities Educated with Nondisabled Peers to the
Maximum Extent Appropriate]{.underline}. On page 24 in Cluster IV of the
APR, Washington reported data indicating preschool children with
disabilities were more often served in special education settings
compared to the national data. On page 24 of Cluster IV of the APR, the
data indicated that, for the 2002-2003 APR reporting period, preschool
special education settings represented 58 percent of all settings for
three- to five-year-olds in the State. OSPI provided strategies to
improve performance in this area. OSEP looks forward to reviewing
information in the next APR that includes both implementation of
strategies and the resulting data demonstrating improvement.

On page 24 of Cluster IV of the APR, Washington included a numerical
goal for increasing the number of preschool children with disabilities
in more inclusive settings by 10 percent. While it is not inconsistent
with Part B of the IDEA to include a numerical goal to increase the
percentage of children with disabilities educated with nondisabled
peers, the State must continue to monitor to ensure that placement
decisions for all children are made in conformity with the requirements
of Part B of IDEA (34 CFR §§300.550 -- 300.556), and are not based on a
numerical goal. In the next APR, due April 29, 2005, OSPI must provide
information demonstrating that placement decisions for preschool
children are made on an individualized basis in accordance with
applicable regulations.

Early Language/Communication, Pre-Reading, and Social-Emotional Skills
of Preschool Children with Disabilities. From data and information
provided by the State in the APR, OSEP could not determine performance
in early language and communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional
skills of preschool children with disabilities. On page 25 of Cluster IV
of the APR, OSPI reported that it was not able to provide data in this
area since it was a new data collection requirement.

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, 31 U.S.C.
§1116, the effectiveness of the IDEA section 619 program is being
measured based on the extent to which early language communication,
pre-reading, and social-emotional skills of preschool children with
disabilities receiving special education and related services are
improving. OSPI included strategies to develop a system to collect this
data, and OSEP looks forward to reviewing data and analysis on the
results of these strategies in the FFY 2003 APR, due April 29, 2005. In
the FFY 2003 APR, Washington must submit documentation of data (whether
collected through sampling, monitoring, individual IEP review, or other
methods), and 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

OSEP's 1999 monitoring report found that students with disabilities were
not always invited to IEP meetings when the purpose was the
consideration of needed transition services and that public agencies did
not routinely invite to IEP meetings representatives of other agencies
that were likely to be responsible for providing or paying for needed
transition services (34 CFR §300.344(b)). Washington's March 2004
Improvement Plan included data and information that also indicated these
areas of noncompliance related to 34 CFR §300.344(b). In Cluster V of
the APR, Washington included strategies to ensure that the percentage of
youth with disabilities participating in post-school activities
(employment, education, etc.) was comparable to that of nondisabled
youth. On page two of Cluster V of the APR, the State reported that
approximately 61 percent of the districts monitored (three out of every
five districts monitored) and 15 percent of the student files monitored
had findings of noncompliance related to the provision of secondary
transition services and planning for those services. Examples of
corrective actions from one sample district provided in Attachment 1 of
OSPI's June 2004 letter to OSEP, in addition to those identified in the
APR, included:

(1) development of a special education procedures manual, outlining the
    need for transition plans that included a course of study to meet
    student's post-school outcomes provided to all certificated special
    education staff;

(2) centralization of all special education files in a district to
    facilitate administrative monitoring and review to ensure that
    transition plans for all students age 14 and above included a
    statement of transition services needed to meet the student's
    post-school plans; and

(3) in-service training provided by secondary transition coordinators
    for all secondary, middle and high school, special education staff
    with regard to current transition regulations, model transition
    plans, and specific training for transition plans for all students
    age 14 and above that include a statement of transition services
    needed to meet the needs of the student's post-school plans.

The State included strategies to correct these areas of noncompliance in
the Improvement Plan submitted as part of the FFY 2002 APR. OSEP accepts
the strategies in the Improvement Plan and expects the State to
demonstrate compliance regarding participants at IEP meetings involving
transition services within one year from the date of this letter. In the
next APR, the State must include data and analysis demonstrating
progress in ensuring that IEP meetings for transition services include
the student when the purpose of the meeting is consideration of
transition services and that representatives of other agencies involved
in providing or paying for transition services are routinely invited to
IEP meetings (34 CFR §300.344(b)), and provide a report to OSEP
documenting correction of this noncompliance as soon as possible, but
not later than 30 days from the one-year timeline.

# Conclusion

As noted above, in the next APR, due April 29, 2005, Washington must
provide: a plan for correcting noncompliance involving individual
students identified through monitoring, within one year of
identification, in accordance with the measures set out in the
verification letter (34 CFR §300.600(a)(2)(ii) and 20 U.S.C. §1232d);
data and analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance, including
copies of monitoring procedures requiring timely correction of
noncompliance involving individual students; and a report to OSEP with
data and analysis documenting correction of this noncompliance as soon
as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date that OSEP accepts
the plan.

In the next APR, Washington must provide data and analysis demonstrating
progress toward compliance and submit a report to OSEP, with
documentation of compliance as soon as possible, but not later than 30
days following one year from the date of this letter to ensure:

-   children in need of specially designed instruction for behavior
    disorders receive required services despite personnel shortages (34
    CFR §§300.380(a)(2) and 300.300(a)(3));

-   children in need of psychological counseling services receive those
    services in accordance with their IEPs, at no cost to the parents
    (34 CFR §300.300(a)(3));

-   students are invited to IEP meetings when the purpose of the meeting
    is consideration of transition services and that representatives of
    other agencies involved in providing or paying for transition
    services are routinely invited to IEP meetings (34 CFR §300.344(b));

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   complaints are resolved within 60 days from the date of receipt of
    the complaint, unless the timeline is extended due to exceptional
    circumstances with respect to a particular complaint (34 CFR
    §300.661(a)A(4) and (b));

-   decisions in due process hearings are issued no later than 45 days
    after the receipt of a request for a hearing, unless the hearing
    officer grants a specific extension of time, at the request of
    either party (34 CFR §300.511); and

-   each child eligible for Part B services who participated in the Part
    C program has an IEP or IFSP in effect by the child's third birthday
    (34 CFR §300.132(b)).

In the next APR, Washington must provide data, whether collected through
IEP or IFSP review or monitoring, demonstrating whether children with
disabilities in need of physical therapy and occupational therapy
services are receiving those services despite personnel shortages (34
CFR §§300.380(a)(2) and 300.300(a)(3)). If data demonstrate
noncompliance, OSPI must submit a plan for correction of this
noncompliance, including strategies, proposed evidence of change,
targets, and timelines to correct this noncompliance as soon as
possible, but not later than thirty days from the date of OSEP's
approval of the plan.

In the next APR, Washington must also provide:

-   the results of its review of procedures of LEAs with significant
    disproportionality in the identification and placement of students
    with disabilities (34 CFR §300.755(b)), and if appropriate, revision
    of policies, procedures and practices that occurred during the
    reporting period; and

-   data and analysis (as required by the APR instructions) regarding
    suspension and expulsion rates for children with disabilities, as
    compared to nondisabled children or across LEAs in the State.

As noted above, OSEP looks forward to reviewing information in the next
APR that includes both implementation of strategies and the resulting
data demonstrating improvement in the following areas:

-   collection and reporting of accurate and timely data;

-   improvement of data regarding parent participation at meetings of
    the evaluation and placement teams;

-   improvement in graduation and drop-out rates;

-   performance with regard to suspension and expulsion of children with
    disabilities;

-   performance of children with disabilities on State- and
    District-wide assessments;

-   children with disabilities educated with nondisabled peers to the
    maximum extent appropriate;

-   placement decisions for preschool children are made on an individual
    basis in accordance with applicable regulations; and

-   early language/communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional
    skills of preschool children with disabilities, including
    documentation of data (whether collected through sampling,
    monitoring, individual IEP review, or other methods), and targets
    for improved performance and strategies to achieve those targets, or
    a plan to collect the data for the FFY 2004 APR, including a
    detailed timeline of the activities necessary to implement that
    plan.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State 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
Dr. Al Jones, at (202) 245-7394.

Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard for

Stephanie Smith Lee

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Dr. Douglas Gill

[^1]: OSPI calculated its disproportionality percentage using the
    relative size of the difference between the child count percentage
    and the student enrollment percentage. A relative difference greater
    than 0.20 indicates over representation. A relative difference of
    --0.20 indicates under representation.

[^2]: All children are required to take State-wide assessments; however,
    for those children whose parents refuse to have their child,
    disabled or nondisabled, participate in State-wide regular
    assessments or alternate assessments, State policy recommends that
    the parent be requested to include the reason for not wanting the
    child tested. If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in
    writing, the school should document that the request was made but
    the parent would not put the refusal in writing (Washington
    Assessment of Student Learning -- Assessment Coordinators Manual.