August 19, 2005

Honorable Cecil J. Picard

State Superintendent

Louisiana State Department of Education

P.O. Box 94064

Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9064

Dear Superintendent Picard:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to Louisiana's March 31, 2005
submission of its Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2003 Annual Performance
Report (APR) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) Part B for the grant period July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
The APR reflects actual accomplishments that the State made during the
reporting period, compared to established objectives. The Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) has designed the APR under the IDEA to
provide uniform reporting from States and result in high-quality
information across States. The APR is a significant data source for OSEP
in the Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS).

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and include specific data-based determinations
regarding performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas. This
letter responds to the State's FFY 2003 APR. OSEP has set out its
comments, analysis and determinations by cluster area.

*Background*

OSEP's September 15, 2004 letter, responding to Louisiana's FFY 2002
Part B APR (September 2004 letter), directed the State to submit, within
three months from the date of the letter, documentation related to
correction of specified, unresolved findings of noncompliance from
OSEP's July 20, 2001 letter regarding OSEP's 2000 monitoring visit to
Louisiana. The State provided the required documentation and analysis
related to the noncompliance to OSEP on December 15, 2004. OSEP reviewed
the documentation and determined that most of the remaining
noncompliance had been corrected. In a letter dated February 25, 2005
(February 2005 letter), OSEP directed the State to submit the following
documentation regarding correction of district-level noncompliance in
the FFY 2003 APR: (1) placement in the least restrictive environment
(LRE) in Jefferson, Pointe Coupee and Union Parishes, and in the City of
Monroe; and (2) statements of needed transition services in East Baton
Rouge and Jefferson Parishes. If the monitoring or other data
demonstrated continuing noncompliance, OSEP directed the State to submit
a plan with strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and
timelines to ensure correction of the noncompliance as soon as possible.

In the September 2004 letter, OSEP also directed the State to include
the following information in the FFY 2003 APR:

1.  The timelines for complaints and due process hearings;

2.  For those districts that determined their data illustrate
    significant disproportionality, the results of the review of the
    policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification and
    placement of students with disabilities to ensure that they are
    consistent with the requirements of Part B and race-neutral;

3.  Information regarding the comparison the State used to determine
    whether significant discrepancies were occurring in the rate of long
    term suspensions or expulsions;

4.  Accurate enrollment and participation data for students with
    disabilities taking State assessments; and

5.  Preschool performance data, targets for improved performance, and
    strategies to achieve those targets for this area, or a plan to
    collect the data.

OSEP's comments on the State's submissions are provided in the
appropriate sections below.

# *General Supervision*

[Identification and timely correction of noncompliance]{.underline}

States must have proper methods for ensuring correction of deficiencies
identified through monitoring (20 U.S.C. §1232d(b)(3)(E) and 34 CFR
§300.600)). In its February 2005 letter, OSEP directed Louisiana to
provide updated documentation in the FFY 2003 APR regarding the
correction of district-level noncompliance. On pages 79-96 and 104-116
of the APR, and in Appendices A-D, the State included data and analysis
that demonstrated correction of noncompliance identified in OSEP's
September 2004 letter in the following areas: (1) data and analysis
indicated that, in Pointe Coupee and Union Parishes, and in the City of
Monroe, placement decisions were made on an individual basis in
accordance with 34 CFR §300.552; and (2) proper statements of needed
transition services were reflected in individualized education programs
(IEPs) developed in East Baton Rouge and Jefferson Parishes -- (34 CFR
§300.347(b)(2)). More details related to correction of these areas of
noncompliance are included in the sections below. In addition, the State
provided OSEP with a copy of a letter dated June 13, 2005 to Jefferson
Parish regarding the district's obligations to ensure the correction of
noncompliance related to LRE. In that letter, the State imposed
interventions and sanctions that require the district to: (1) use
district funds to pay for an LRE consultant selected by the State; (2)
with the consultant, develop a plan to move students more aggressively
into regular education classes with the necessary supports; and (3) use
district funds to cover all costs associated with the consultant's plan
for correcting the noncompliance related to LRE. OSEP appreciates the
work of the State in ensuring compliance with these requirements. OSEP
looks forward to reviewing the State's data in this area as part of the
State Performance Plan (SPP) due December 2, 2005.

[Formal written complaints]{.underline}

On page 15 of the APR, the State included data showing that, of the 68
formal complaints filed during the period July 1, 2003 -- June 30, 2004,
24 resulted in findings, 39 resulted in no findings, and five were
either not investigated or were withdrawn. The State reported that
decisions for all 63 of the complaints that it investigated were
completed within timelines, with an average time of 58 days to close the
complaints. The State further reported that no complaints were pending
as of February 1, 2005. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this
area and looks forward to reviewing the State's data and information
regarding complaints in the SPP.

[Mediation]{.underline}

The State's data on page 15 of the APR indicated that, of the 21
requests for mediation during July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004, 19 resulted
in mediation agreements. As of February 1, 2005, no mediation requests
were pending. OSEP looks forward to reviewing information regarding the
State's performance in this area in the SPP.

[Due process hearings and reviews]{.underline}

States must ensure that a final decision is reached in a due process
hearing 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
extends the 45-day timeline for a specific period of time at the request
of a party to the hearing (34 CFR §300.511(a) and (c)). The State's data
on page 15 of the APR and information provided to OSEP in subsequent
e-mail communication from the State on May 5 and June 16 showed that the
State received 65 hearing requests between July 1, 2003 and June 30,
2004. Of the 64 requests for a special education hearing (one request
concerned a child who was gifted): (1) 13 were fully adjudicated within
the 45-day timeline or an extended timeline; (2) the decision for one
was issued beyond the extended timeline; (3) 15 were settled at
mediation; and (4) 35 were withdrawn or dismissed. On page 16, the State
reported that the same hearing officer had also issued one hearing
decision after the timeline in 2002-03, and that the hearing officer is
no longer used by the legal department. The State further reported that
the average time to render a decision was 67 days and that no hearings
were pending as of February 1, 2005. The State further indicated in the
June 16 e-mail to OSEP that most hearings were extended once, and that
both parties jointly requested most of the extensions. On page 17 of the
APR, the State indicated that a decision would be made in June 2005
whether or not to issue guidelines to hearing officers for extending
timelines. On page 16 of the APR, the State reported that all targets
related to complaint investigations, mediations, and due process
hearings were met during July 1, 2003 -- June 30, 2004. New targets,
including future activities, and timelines were included on pages 11-12
and 16-17. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks
forward to data and information in the SPP, including information, if
available, regarding any guidelines that Louisiana has issued to hearing
officers regarding extending hearing timelines.

[Personnel]{.underline}

On pages 18-27 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
information regarding certified and non-certified personnel, including
administrators, teachers, related service providers and
paraprofessionals. Louisiana's stated goal is to increase the number of
certified special education teachers to 100 percent by the year
2013-2014. The APR included several strategies, targets, and timelines
for reaching this goal. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts to improve
performance in this area.

[Collection and timely reporting of accurate data]{.underline}

On pages 29-30 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included information
regarding the collection and timely reporting of accurate data. The
State reported on its data systems, including the new Special Education
Report (SER) that will be implemented in August 2005. The SER, a
web-based system, will replace the current data system as the primary
means of data gathering for special education. The APR included a
maintenance target, training activities, and timelines related to the
new system. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks
forward to reviewing information demonstrating continued performance in
this area in the SPP.

*Early Childhood Transition*

On pages 31-34 of the APR, the State included data and information
indicating the following area of noncompliance not previously identified
by OSEP: Of the children exiting Part C services who were found eligible
for special education and related services, many did not have IEPs in
effect by their third birthdays (34 CFR §300.132(b)). On pages 31-34,
the State provided detailed information regarding the number and
percentage of young children with disabilities that had IEPs developed
before their third birthdays. For 2003-2004, there was an increase of
2.1 percent from the prior year for children transitioning from Part C
that had IEPs developed by their third birthdays. However, even with
this increase, the numbers only represent 30.5 percent of the total
number of children participating in Part C who were found eligible for
Part B services, reflecting an additional 69.5 percent that had IEPs
developed [after]{.underline} their third birthdays. On page 33, the
State recognized this as noncompliance. To ensure the provision of a
free appropriate public education (FAPE) by the third birthday, as
required by 34 CFR §300.132(b), the State projected a target to
"increase from a baseline of 30.5 percent to 100 percent," the number of
children with IEPs developed and implemented by their third birthdays,
by June 30, 2005. On pages 33-34 of the APR, the State also included
strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines designed
to ensure compliance by June 30, 2005. OSEP accepts this plan. In
addition, the State should carefully review its plan for collecting data
in this area against the requirements related to this indicator in the
SPP packet. The State must make a determination whether plans currently
in place to collect preschool transition data will be responsive to
those requirements.

In its SPP, the State must include a Progress Report with data and
analysis demonstrating progress toward compliance in this area,
including the following: (1) the number of children exiting Part C
during 2004-2005 who may be eligible for services under Part B; (2) the
number of those children found eligible for Part B services during the
reporting period; (3) the number of eligible children for whom an IEP
(or individualized family service plan (IFSP), consistent with Part B)
was developed and implemented by the child's third birthday; and (4) for
any eligible children who did not have an IEP (or IFSP meeting Part B
requirements) developed and implemented by the child's third birthday,
an explanation of why not. In addition, the State must provide a report
to OSEP with data and analysis demonstrating compliance as soon as
possible but not later than 30 days following the end of the one-year
timeline, beginning with the date of this letter.

OSEP assumes that any Part C to Part B tracking system that Louisiana
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*

On pages 35-41 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
information regarding parent involvement in special education services
in Louisiana. Parents are offered a variety of training activities
through regional academies, Families Helping Families (FHF) Family
Resource Centers, and LDE-sponsored parent weekend workshops. In
addition, parents continue to be involved in the State's continuous
improvement monitoring process (CIMP) on-site monitoring activities as
full members of the State monitoring teams. The State reported that, in
2004, 19 parents were trained in the monitoring process to prepare them
for conducting parent focus meetings and parent interviews during
on-site monitoring visits. LDE will distribute the NCSEAM[^1] *Parent
Participation and Perception Survey* during the fall of 2005 through
their statewide network of partners. As a result of this distribution,
the State expects to have baseline data by spring of 2006 and be able to
report on the data in the FFY 2007 APR. OSEP appreciates the State's
efforts in this area and looks forward to reviewing data and information
demonstrating continued performance in this area in the SPP.

Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE)

[Disproportionality]{.underline}

In the September 2004 letter, OSEP directed the State to provide, in the
FFY 2003 APR, the results of the review of policies, procedures, and
practices used in the identification and placement of students with
disabilities to ensure that they are consistent with the requirements of
Part B and are race-neutral, for those districts with data that
illustrate significant disproportionality in the identification of
children in specific disability categories and the placement of children
in particular educational settings. Section 300.755 (b) requires that
when the State determines that there is significant disproportionality
regarding the identification or educational placement of children with
disabilities, the State provides for the review and, if appropriate,
revision of the policies, procedures, and practices used in
identification or placement to ensure that the policies, procedures, and
practices comply with the requirements of Part B.

On pages 42-48, and in the table on page 118 of the APR, the State
included data and analysis indicating a need to improve performance in
this area. The State provided trend data indicating a disproportionate
identification of Black students in particular disability categories and
in particular educational environments. On pages 47-48, the State
outlined a plan that includes activities and responsibilities of each
district and the State to improve performance in this area, including
districts' examination of policies regarding identification and
placement and development of appropriate corrective actions. However,
the State did not provide the results of its review of policies,
procedures, and practices used in the identification and placement of
students with disabilities to ensure that they are consistent with the
requirements of Part B and are race-neutral, for those districts with
data that illustrate significant disproportionality in the
identification of children in specific disability categories and the
placement of children in particular educational settings.

Within 30 days from the date of this letter, the State must either: (1)
provide the results of its review of policies, procedures, and practices
used in the identification and placement of students with disabilities
to ensure that they are consistent with the requirements of Part B and
are race-neutral, for those districts with data that illustrate
significant disproportionality in the identification of children in
specific disability categories and the placement of children in
particular educational settings, as required by 34 CFR §300.755; or (2)
specify what steps the State will take to implement its plan to report
on the results of its review of policies, procedures, and practices, as
outlined above, and to ensure correction of the noncompliance as soon as
possible, not to exceed one year from the date of this letter.

On page 42 of the APR, Louisiana identified two performance indicators
for addressing disproportionality regarding the numbers of children with
disabilities receiving special education and the numbers of children
with disabilities in each educational setting. These indicators address
whether the percentage of children with disabilities, by race/ethnicity,
receiving special education is proportional to the percentage of
children, by race/ethnicity, in the State's general population and
whether the percentage of children with disabilities in each educational
setting, by race/ethnicity, is proportional to the percentage of
children in the State's general enrollment. The proposed use of
numerical goals based upon race raises serious concerns under federal
civil rights laws and the United States Constitution and is not an
appropriate way to address the potential compliance problems that
significant disproportionality may indicate. Any proposed use of
numerical goals/targets based upon race, even where the numerical goal
is based upon comparable numbers in the general population, raises the
same legal concerns. In the SPP, Louisiana must submit revised language
for these performance indicators that is consistent with Federal law.

[Graduation and drop-out rates]{.underline}

On pages 49-53 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
information regarding graduation and drop-out rates in Louisiana. For
students with disabilities graduating with a high school diploma, the
State's trend data showed improvement between 2000/2001 and 2002/2003,
then a decline in 2003/2004. The graduation rates for students with
disabilities over years were: 2000/2001 -- 16.7 percent; 2001/2002 --
21.0 percent; 2002/2003 -- 22.6 percent; and 2003/2004 -- 18.9 percent.
The State's ten-year target for increasing graduation rates for students
with disabilities is: from a baseline of 18.9 percent in 1999-2000 to 50
percent in 2013-2014. For students with disabilities dropping out of
high school, the State reported that 24 percent of students with
disabilities aged 14-21 dropped out during 2003/2004. The ten-year
target for decreasing the drop-out rate for students with disabilities
is: from 24 percent in 1999-2000 to 15 percent in 2013-2014.

Because of a change in the State's process for reporting graduation and
drop-out rates, trend data comparing the rates of students with
disabilities to their nondisabled peers were not available. The State
included projected targets and future activities to address performance
in this area, including a requirement for LEAs to address low
graduation/high drop-out rates in their LEA applications, and a ten-year
plan to improve outcomes for students with disabilities exiting school.
OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks forward to
reviewing data and information demonstrating improvement in the SPP.

[Suspension and expulsion]{.underline}

In its September 2004 letter, OSEP directed the State to provide in the
FFY 2003 APR information regarding the comparison the State did to
determine whether significant discrepancies were occurring in the rates
of long-term suspensions or expulsions and, if significant discrepancies
were occurring, a description of those discrepancies and how the State
planned to address them. On pages 54-67 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State
included data and information, including district-level trend and
ranking data for the suspension and expulsion of students with
disabilities for more than ten days in a school year. The State's data
indicated that students with specific learning disabilities made up 49
percent of all students with disabilities that were suspended or
expelled for more than ten days in 2003-2004. The State's analysis on
page 62 indicated that two LEAs accounted for almost a third of all
students with disabilities in the State receiving suspensions/expulsions
for more than ten days. The State further indicated that, since the
2000-2001 school year, there was a 52 percent decrease in the number of
students with disabilities with single suspension/expulsions of more
than ten days. Louisiana has several collaborative training and
technical assistance initiatives underway related to school-wide
positive behavioral supports (SWPBS), with over 250 schools
participating during the 2004-2005 school year. Through funding from the
Louisiana State Improvement Grant (SIG), and other State funding
sources, SWPBS activities have expanded over the past two years and have
likely contributed to the decrease in suspensions and expulsions of
students with disabilities. OSEP commends Louisiana for its efforts in
this area. The APR also included targets and activities to further
address disciplinary actions, including a plan to track progress in
identified LEAs through action plans on a bi-annual basis.

34 CFR §300.146 requires that States examine data to determine if
significant discrepancies are occurring in the rates 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 LEA to revise) its policies, procedures and
practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the
use of behavioral interventions, and procedural safeguards to ensure
that the policies, procedures and practices comply with Part B.

It appears from page 62 of the APR that the State has identified
significant discrepancies in at least two districts; however, the State
did not include evidence of a review (and if appropriate, a revision) of
the districts' policies, procedures and practices related to suspension
and expulsion of students with disabilities. The State must include
updated information related to this area in the SPP, including evidence
of the review, and if appropriate, revision, of the policies, procedures
and practices of districts with significant discrepancies and the impact
of the State's focus on schoolwide positive behavioral supports, to
improve performance in this area.

[Statewide and districtwide assessment]{.underline}

In the September 2004 letter, OSEP directed the State to provide in the
FFY 2003 APR, accurate enrollment and participation data for students
with disabilities taking statewide assessments. On pages 68-78 and in
Attachment 3, the State included participation and performance data,
including trend data, and analysis indicating a need to improve
performance of students with disabilities on the Math and
English/Language Arts assessments at the fourth and fifth grade levels.
For the 2003-2004 school year, 99.4 percent of students with
disabilities (in the grades assessed) participated in the State's
assessment system, with 93 percent participating in the Louisiana
Educational Assessment Program **(**LEAP**)** and 6.4 percent
participating in the LEAP alternate assessment (LAA). The State also
developed strategies to improve performance that include the development
(to be piloted in spring of 2006) of a second alternate assessment based
on grade-level achievement standards. OSEP looks forward to reviewing
information in the SPP related to assessment, including the
implementation of strategies and resulting data and analysis
demonstrating improvement.

[Least restrictive environment (LRE)]{.underline}

In its February 2005 letter, OSEP directed the State to provide in the
FFY 2003 APR a status report on correction of noncompliance related to
LRE in the City of Monroe and in Jefferson, Pointe Coupee and Union
parishes. In Appendices A, B and C of the FFY 2003 APR, the State
included data and analysis demonstrating progress in correcting
noncompliance related to the area of placement in the LRE (34 CFR
§300.552).

Documentation for three of the parishes included summaries of on-site
follow-up visits, record reviews, staff interviews and classroom
observations. For Pointe Coupee, Union Parish, and the City of Monroe,
the State determined that there was no continuing evidence of
noncompliance in the area of LRE. The State's documentation further
indicated that the City of Monroe far exceeded its goal of reducing the
number of students with disabilities served in self-contained settings
by three percent each year for four consecutive years.[^2]

The State provided OSEP with a copy of a letter to Jefferson Parish,
dated June 13, 2005, also referenced in the General Supervision section
of this letter, regarding the status of noncompliance related to the
placement of students with disabilities in the LRE. The letter indicates
that, even with more than two years of State oversight, the most recent
monitoring visit showed a continued high rate of placements in
segregated settings, and that 79 percent of placements for students with
emotional disabilities, 72 percent of students with learning
disabilities, and 58 percent of students with developmental delays were
placed outside the regular classroom. Therefore, as described in the
General Supervision section above, the State imposed specific
interventions and sanctions on the District relative to placement in
restrictive settings. The State must include data and analysis
documenting progress toward compliance related to LRE in Jefferson
Parish in the SPP, including evidence of on-site follow-up visits,
record reviews, staff interviews and classroom observations.

On pages 79-96 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and analysis
indicating a need to improve statewide performance in the areas of least
restrictive environment. The State included a numerical goal for
increasing the percentage of children educated in the regular education
setting (from 49.6 percent (baseline) to 75 percent by the year 2014).
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 in regular education settings, the State must continue to
monitor to ensure that placement decisions for all children are made on
an individual basis in conformity with the requirements of Part B of
IDEA at 34 CFR §§300.550-300.553.

#  Preschool performance outcomes

# In the September 2004 letter, OSEP directed the State to provide in the FFY 2003 APR preschool performance 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. The State did not include preschool performance data in the FFY 2003 APR, but indicated on page 102 of the APR that an early childhood assessment initiative was written to address this indicator. On pages 102-103 of the APR, the State outlined a plan that includes targets, activities, timelines, and resources to address the early language/communication, pre-reading, and social-emotional skills of preschool children with disabilities. Thus far, the State's plan appears to include approval of the Early Childhood Assessment Initiative, plans for meetings of an Early Childhood Task Force, and consideration of various instruments to collect data for this indicator. In preparation for submission of the SPP on December 2, 2005, the State should carefully review its plans for collecting data in this area against the requirements related to this indicator in the SPP packet, and should determine whether plans currently in place to collect data related to this area will be responsive to those requirements.

***Secondary Transition***

Current regulations at 34 CFR §300.347(b)(2) require that for each
student beginning at age 16 (or younger, if determined appropriate by
the IEP team), the IEP must include a statement of needed transition
services for the student, including, if appropriate, a statement of the
interagency responsibilities or any needed linkages. Effective July 1,
2005, §614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) of IDEA 2004 requires that *beginning not
later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child is 16*, and
updated annually thereafter, the IEP contain: (1) appropriate measurable
postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments
related to training, education, employment and, where appropriate,
independent living skills; and (2) the transition services (including
courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals.

In its February 2005 response to the State's Progress Report, OSEP
directed the State to report on the status of its efforts to correct the
noncompliance regarding statements of needed transition services in East
Baton Rouge and Jefferson parishes. On pages 104-116 and in Appendix D
of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included the following data and analysis
demonstrating continued progress in correcting noncompliance related to
secondary transition, as required by 34 CFR §300.347(b)(2): (1)
district-level charts that include IEP data elements and percentages of
evidence for each area of compliance related to secondary transition;
and (2) the State's analysis of those data (on page 115) and a
determination of correction of the noncompliance. The State reported
that both Jefferson and East Baton Rouge parishes submitted 50 IEPs
during February 2005 that were reviewed by State education agency (SEA)
staff. The results of that review, which are reflected in the data
charts in Appendix D, indicate increased compliance in all areas of
secondary transition. However, the State determined, through its review,
that Orleans, Jefferson, and East Baton Rouge parishes would continue to
be targeted through June 2005 for compliance in the area of secondary
transition, including the review of statements of needed transition
services. Within 90 days from the date of this letter, the State must
include a Final Report demonstrating full compliance with IDEA's current
secondary transition requirement in Orleans, Jefferson, and East Baton
Rouge parishes.

On pages 104-116 of the FFY 2003 APR, the State included data and
information regarding secondary transition. On page 106 of the APR, LDE
indicated that the State did not have a mechanism in place for
collecting statewide data on post-school outcomes for students with
disabilities during the 2003-2004 reporting period. With the
implementation of the new data reporting system (SER), post-school
outcome data collection will be incorporated into the system design.
Data collection will take place through the use of a survey administered
to students upon exiting school, and at one and three-year follow-up
intervals. OSEP appreciates the State's efforts in this area and looks
forward to reviewing information and data and in the SPP.

## Conclusion

As noted above, the State must, within 30 days from the date of this
letter, submit either: (1) the results of its review of policies,
procedures, and practices used in the identification and placement of
students with disabilities to ensure that they are consistent with the
requirements of Part B and are race-neutral, for those districts with
data that illustrate significant disproportionality in the
identification of children in specific disability categories and the
placement of children in particular educational settings, as required by
34 CFR §300.755; or (2) specify what steps the State will take to
implement its plan to report on the results of its review of policies,
procedures, and practices as outlined above, to ensure correction of the
noncompliance as soon as possible, not to exceed one year from the date
of this letter.

As also noted above, within 90 days from the date of this letter,
Louisiana must submit to OSEP a Final Report demonstrating full
compliance related to secondary transition for Orleans, Jefferson, and
East Baton Rouge parishes.

As further noted above, Louisiana must also include the following
information in the SPP, due December 2, 2005:

1.  A Progress Report, including data and analysis, demonstrating the
    State's progress in ensuring that children who participated in Part
    C who are found eligible for services under Part B have an IEP (or
    IFSP consistent with Part B) in effect by their third birthday (34
    CFR §300.132(b));

2.  Revised language that is consistent with Federal law for performance
    indicators regarding the percentage of children with disabilities
    receiving special education and the percentage of children with
    disabilities in each educational setting;

3.  Data and analysis documenting progress toward compliance related to
    LRE in Jefferson Parish; and

4.  Data and analysis documenting review of district-level policies,
    procedures and practices in districts with significant discrepancies
    regarding disciplinary suspensions and expulsions.

In addition, the State must provide a report with data and analysis
demonstrating compliance related to early childhood transition to OSEP
as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days following the end of the
one-year timeline, beginning with the date of this letter.

IDEA 2004, §616, requires each State to submit a State Performance Plan
that measures performance on monitoring priorities and indicators
established by the Department. These priorities and indicators are, for
the most part, similar to clusters and probes in the APR. OSEP
encourages the State to carefully consider the comments in this letter
as it prepares its SPP, due December 2, 2005.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State and looks 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
Cynthia Bryant at (202) 245-7284.

> Sincerely,

Troy R. Justesen

Acting Director

Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosure

cc: Robin Jarvis

[^1]: National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring
    (NCSEAM)

[^2]: In the City of Monroe, during the 1998-1999 school year, 54.43
    percent of students with disabilities were in self-contained classes
    and only 16.7 percent were in regular class settings. By the
    2003-2004 school year, 10.4 percent were in self-contained classes
    and 40.2 percent were in regular class settings.