February 1, 2002

Honorable Charles B. Zogby

Acting Secretary

Pennsylvania Department of Education

333 Market Street\
Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333

Honorable Feather O. Houstoun

Secretary

Department of Public Welfare

Health and Welfare Building

Room 333

7^th^ and Forester Streets

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120

Dear Secretary Zogby and Secretary Houstoun:

The U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in Pennsylvania during the weeks of March 13
and October 23, 2000, for the purpose of assessing compliance in the
implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
and assisting your State in developing strategies to improve results for
children with disabilities. The IDEA Amendments of 1997 focus on "access
to services" as well as "improving results" for infants, toddlers,
children and youth with disabilities. In the same way, OSEP's Continuous
Improvement Monitoring Process is designed to focus Federal, State and
local resources on improved results for children with disabilities and
their families through a working partnership among OSEP, the
Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), the Pennsylvania Department
of Public Welfare (DPW) and parents and advocates in Pennsylvania.

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
the work of Pennsylvania's Steering Committee of broad-based
constituencies, including representatives from PDE, DPW and OSEP. The
Steering Committee assessed the effectiveness of State systems in
ensuring improved results for children with disabilities and protection
of individual rights. In addition, the Steering Committee will be
designing and coordinating implementation of concrete steps for
improvement. Please see the Introduction to the report for a more
detailed description of this process in your State, including
representation on the Steering Committee.

OSEP's review placed a strong emphasis on those areas that are most
closely associated with positive results for children with disabilities.
In this review, OSEP clustered the Part B (services for children aged 3
through 21) requirements into four major areas: Parent Involvement, Free
Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment,
Secondary Transition and General Supervision. Part C (services for
children aged birth through 2) requirements were clustered into five
major areas: Child Find and Public Awareness, Family-Centered Systems of
Services, Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments, Early
Childhood Transition, and General Supervision. Components were
identified by OSEP for each major area as a basis to review the State's
performance through examination of State and local indicators.

The enclosed Report addresses strengths noted in the State, areas
needing corrective action because they represent noncompliance with the
requirements of IDEA, and suggestions for improved results for infants,
toddlers, children and youth with disabilities. Enclosed you will find
an Executive Summary of the Report, an Introduction including background
information, and a description of issues and findings.

PDE's Fiscal Year 2000 IDEA Part B grant award was released subject to
special conditions. Specifically, OSEP determined that PDE had not
ensured that its process for verifying the completion of local school
district corrective actions resulted in the effective correction of
identified noncompliance. For the 2000-2001 school year, PDE initiated
revised procedures for verifying the completion of corrective actions;
however at the time of OSEP's October 23, 2000 visit, these procedures
had not been in place long enough for OSEP to determine their
effectiveness. Therefore, OSEP conducted an on-site review on May 15 and
16, 2001, for the purpose of collecting data relative to this issue.
OSEP visited four school districts that had been monitored by PDE and
for which PDE had determined that all deficiencies had been corrected.
OSEP collected data regarding the same issues for which PDE had
previously found noncompliance, and concluded that the deficiencies had
in fact been corrected.

This Report reflects OSEP's first monitoring review of the State's Part
C system. Although this Report does note some areas of noncompliance and
suggestions for improving results for infants and toddlers with
disabilities, OSEP found that DPW has established an effective system
for general supervision of the Part C system, and that, as a result of
the strong general supervision system and a statewide commitment to
implement an effective system, the state is achieving positive results
for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families. DPW's
leadership is evident.

PDE and DPW have indicated that this Report will be shared with members
of the Steering Committee, the State Interagency Coordinating Council
and the State Advisory Panel. OSEP will work with your Steering
Committee to develop corrective actions and improvement strategies to
ensure improved results for children with disabilities.

Thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your staff
during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Dr. Frances
Warkomski and Ms. Maureen Cronin were responsive to OSEP's requests for
information, and provided access to necessary documentation that enabled
OSEP staff to work in partnership with the Steering Committee to better
understand the State's systems for implementing the IDEA. We appreciate
the effort made by State staff to arrange the public input process
during the Validation Planning week and, as a result of their efforts,
OSEP obtained information from a large number of parents (including
members of underrepresented groups), advocates, service providers,
school and agency personnel, school and agency administrators, and
special education unit administrators.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities in
Pennsylvania. Since the enactment of the IDEA and its predecessor, the
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, one of the basic goals of the
law, ensuring that children with disabilities are not excluded from
school, has largely been achieved. Today, families can have a positive
vision for their child's future.

While schools and agencies have made great progress, significant
challenges remain. Now that children with disabilities are receiving
services, the critical issue is to place greater emphasis on attaining
better results. To that end, we look forward to working with you in
partnership to continue to improve the lives of individuals with
disabilities.

> Sincerely,
>
> Patricia J. Guard
>
> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

Enclosures

cc: Ms. Maureen Cronin

Dr. Frances Warkomski

######## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

**PENNSYLVANIA MONITORING 2000**

The attached Report contains the results of the first two steps
(Validation Planning and Validation Data Collection) in the Office of
Special Education Program's (OSEP) Continuous Improvement Monitoring of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Parts B and C,
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania during the weeks of March 13-17,
2000 and October 23-27, 2000. The process is designed to focus resources
on improving results for infants, toddlers and children with
disabilities and their families through enhanced partnerships between
Commonwealth agencies, OSEP, parents and advocates. The Validation
Planning phase of the monitoring process included the completion of a
Self-Assessment, a series of public input meetings with guided
discussions around core areas of IDEA, and the organization of a
Steering Committee, that provided further comments on the implementation
of IDEA. As part of the public input process, the Department of
Education (PDE) and Department of Public Welfare (DPW) made particular
efforts to include a wide geographical area that included both
multi-cultural and underrepresented populations. The Validation Data
Collection phase included interviews with parents, students, agency
administrators, local program and school administrators, service
providers, teachers and service coordinators and reviews of children's
records. Information obtained from these data sources was shared in two
meetings, one conducted with the PDE (Part B) and the other conducted
with the DPW (Part C).

The report contains a detailed description of the process utilized to
collect data, and to determine strengths, areas of noncompliance with
IDEA, and suggestions for improvement in each of the core IDEA areas.

**[Early Intervention Service for Infants and Toddlers With
Disabilities:]{.underline}**

**[Part C of IDEA]{.underline}**

#### Strengths

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   The Pennsylvania Early Intervention Technical Assistance System
    (EITA) provides technical assistance to parents, programs and State
    and local staff that provide services to children from birth to
    school age and their families.

-   The progress of children through the Early Intervention Service
    System and the services made available to them are tracked through
    the Early Intervention Reporting System (EIRS).

-   Potential service recipients can access the Central Interagency
    Referral System throughout the State via a toll-free number that is
    widely publicized. This system serves as the central point of
    referral to a variety of education, health and social services.

-   DPW underwent a massive systems change to permit children to receive
    early intervention services in natural environments. Provision of
    early intervention services in natural environments increased and
    the numbers of children served in segregated centers decreased.

-   Local Interagency Coordinating Councils function in each county to
    identify strategies to address issues pertaining to the delivery of
    services.

-   Under the guidance of the EITA, the promising practice of the Parent
    Teachback in Dauphin County is an excellent use of parent focus
    groups. Focus groups are presented with questions from parents of
    newly identified children and they provide answers as well as
    provide information to help train staff.

-   In the three regions of the State visited, OSEP found that effective
    transition activities ensured a smooth transition from Part C to
    Part B.

**Areas of Noncompliance**

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   DPW has not ensured that the child find activities are sufficient to
    ensure that all infants and toddlers in the State who may be
    eligible are identified, located and evaluated. DPW has also not
    ensured that its public awareness activities adequately inform the
    general public, including families, physicians and traditionally
    under served populations about the early intervention program.

-   DPW has not ensured that the IFSP includes all early intervention
    services necessary to meet the needs of the child and family, as
    well as medical, and "other services," that the child and family
    need.

-   Despite an increase in the number of children served in natural
    environments, DPW has not ensured that the IFSP decision-making
    process is based on appropriate factors for the determination of the
    natural environment in which early intervention services will be
    provided and the location of the services.

-   DPW has not ensured that the assessment identifies the needs of the
    family related to enhancing the development of their child, and that
    the supports and services necessary to enhance the family's capacity
    to meet the developmental needs of their child are included on the
    child's IFSP.

-   DPW has not ensured that the steps to prepare the child and the
    parent for transition to Part B services or other services as
    appropriate are included on the IFSP.

**[Education of Children and Youth with Disabilities:]{.underline}**

**[Part B of IDEA]{.underline}**

**Strengths**

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   Parent training opportunities are offered in multiple formats and
    languages through the Intermediate Units and Parent Training Offices
    within the district and also through advocacy organizations and
    community groups.

-   Significant training efforts by PDE have resulted in extensive
    efforts to include children with disabilities in nonacademic and
    extracurricular activities. In addition, community activities are
    also coordinated to include children with disabilities. For example,
    "Creature Feature" program in Schuylkill County is an exemplary
    program for students with emotional disturbance who would otherwise
    be at risk for residential placement.

-   With the support of PDE, the Gertrude A. Barber Center provides
    preschool services for the participating districts of Intermediate
    Unit 3. The [Educational Institute]{.underline} was established to
    train and educate professionals, paraprofessionals, the community
    and families of children with disabilities regarding "best
    practices" in the field of developmental disabilities.

-   Support from PDE has resulted in a high level of sophistication
    regarding secondary transition requirements and services for
    children with disabilities in the Philadelphia School District.

-   The restructuring of the dispute resolution system at the State
    level creates a system that is more responsive to parents and is
    designed to ensure that decisions and corrective actions are
    implemented in a timely manner.

-   The Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network provides
    a significant level of technical assistance and training to school
    districts and intermediate units, upon request, to improve results
    for children with disabilities across the Commonwealth.

-   PDE has undertaken a variety of State-wide initiatives during the
    past year that are intended to coordinate and improve State systems
    related to special education services including development of State
    academic standards that apply to all students; development of an
    alternate assessment for children with disabilities who cannot
    participate in part, or all, of the standard assessment; convening
    an interagency workgroup to establish regional training sessions;
    development of a charter school resource kit for special education;
    establishment of a records center for children with disabilities in
    correctional facilities; and development of a monitoring system and
    the encompasses both compliance and results.

**Areas of Noncompliance**

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   Children with disabilities are excluded from the regular educational
    environment for reasons other than the nature or severity of the
    disability.

-   The procedures and activities that PDE has undertaken have not
    ensured that an adequate supply of qualified special education and
    related services personnel are available to implement IDEA,
    resulting in a failure to provide appropriate evaluations and
    services in a timely manner.

-   PDE did not ensure that all children with disabilities who require
    extended school year services as part of a free appropriate public
    education are provided these services, in accordance with an
    appropriate IEP.

-   PDE did not ensure that all children with disabilities who require
    psychological counseling to benefit from special education are
    provided with this service, in accordance with an appropriate IEP.

-   PDE did not ensure that all children with disabilities who do not
    participate in all, or part of, Pennsylvania's State-wide assessment
    of student achievement are assessed, in accordance with an
    appropriate IEP.

-   PDE did not ensure that decisions regarding participation in State
    or district-wide assessment are based on the child's unique needs
    and not on the child's disability.

-   PDE did not ensure that IEPs for children with disabilities identify
    the initiation, duration, frequency and location of services and
    modifications provided to, or on behalf of, children with
    disabilities.

-   PDE did not ensure that the IEPs of students with disabilities
    include a statement of needed transition services that addresses the
    student's needs, interests and abilities, and represents a
    coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process
    designed to facilitate a student's transition from high school into
    an appropriate post-secondary situation. Neither did PDE ensure that
    IEPs for each student beginning at age 14 (or younger, if determined
    appropriate by the IEP team), include a statement of the transition
    service needs of the student that focuses on the student's courses
    of study.

-   PDE did not ensure that IEP notification and invitation meet IDEA
    requirements regarding transition.

-   While charter schools are considered public agencies, PDE did not
    have on file the policies and procedures of the charter schools
    related to special education.

-   PDE did not ensure that the requirement for consent to transfer
    records does not result in a failure to provide a child with a free
    appropriate public education. This requirement may result in a
    failure to identify, locate and evaluate some children with
    disabilities who are in need of special education and related
    services.

######## Pennsylvania Monitoring Report

**[Table of Contents]{.underline}**

[INTRODUCTION 1](#introduction)

[I: PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION
2](#i-part-c-general-supervision-and-administration)

[A. STRENGTHS OR PROMISING PRACTICES
3](#a.-strengths-or-promising-practices)

[II. PART C: CHILD FIND/PUBLIC AWARENESS
5](#ii.-part-c-child-findpublic-awareness)

[A. STRENGTH 6](#a.-strength)

[B. AREA OF NON-COMPLIANCE 6](#b.-area-of-non-compliance)

[III. PART C: EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS
10](#iii.-part-c-early-intervention-services-in-natural-environments)

[A. STRENGTHS 11](#a.-strengths)

[B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 12](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance)

[C. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND
THEIR FAMILIES
16](#c.-suggested-areas-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families)

[IV. PART C: FAMILY-CENTERED SYSTEM OF SERVICES
19](#iv.-part-c-family-centered-system-of-services)

[A. STRENGTH/ PROMISING PRACTICE 20](#a.-strength-promising-practice)

[B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE 20](#b.-area-of-noncompliance)

[V: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION 24](#v-early-childhood-transition)

[A. STRENGTH 25](#a.-strength-1)

[B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE 25](#b.-area-of-noncompliance-1)

[VI. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT 27](#vi.-part-b-parent-involvement)

[A. STRENGTH 28](#a.-strength-2)

[B. SUGGESTED AREA FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH
DISABILITIES
28](#b.-suggested-area-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

[VII. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE
ENVIRONMENT
29](#vii.-part-b-free-appropriate-public-education-in-the-least-restrictive-environment)

[A. STRENGTHS 32](#a.-strengths-1)

[B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 33](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-1)

[C. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH
DISABILITIES
40](#c.-suggested-areas-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities)

[VIII. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION
43](#viii.-part-b-secondary-transition)

[A. STRENGTH 44](#a.-strength-3)

[B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 44](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-2)

[IX. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION 48](#ix.-part-b-general-supervision)

[A. STRENGTHS 50](#a.-strengths-2)

[B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE 51](#b.-areas-of-noncompliance-3)

[C. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH
DISABILITIES
52](#c.-suggested-areas-for-improved-results-for-children-and-youth-with-disabilities-1)

# INTRODUCTION

Pennsylvania is a large and diverse Commonwealth combining rural and
mountain areas with large urban centers in the west and east. Young
children and school age students with disabilities receive early
intervention, special education and support services in a variety of
settings throughout the Commonwealth. The primary agencies responsible
for service provision to children and their families are described
below.

The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW*)* is responsible for
administering a State Plan to ensure that eligible children receive
medical assistance benefits pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security
Act; providing funds to the sixty-seven counties of the Commonwealth for
services to individuals with mental illness or mental retardation
pursuant to the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966; and
promoting the employment of individuals who are blind or visually
impaired by providing vocational rehabilitation, job training, and
placement services pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended.

DPW's Office of Mental Retardation administers the Birth to Three Early
Intervention Program in accordance with Pennsylvania Act 212-1990 and
Part C of the Individuals with Disabilities education Act (IDEA). The
Office of Mental retardation sets policies and allocates funds to 45
county Mental Health/Mental Retardation Programs who administer early
intervention locally. County programs either directly provide services
or contract with private providers. In fiscal year 2000, 15,908 children
and families received services and supports in the Birth to Three Early
Intervention Program.

According to the PDE\'s 2000 Statistical Summary Status Report there are
2,147,736 students enrolled in programs for grades K-12, in public,
nonpublic and private schools in the Commonwealth. Approximately 240,000
students, ages three to 21, receive services in the Commonwealth under
Part B of the IDEA.

Educational services for children and youth with disabilities are
provided through various entities. Five hundred and one (501) school
districts are designated as responsible local education agencies for the
provision of special education and related services for eligible
students who are the age of beginners to age 21. As of the 2000
Statistical Report, there were 3,228 public schools, serving grades
K-12, in the Commonwealth. In addition to school districts, there are 29
intermediate units providing direct and indirect instructional programs
and support services to eligible students with disabilities. In
Pennsylvania, the Intermediate Units are the recipients of Part B
subgrants, rather than the local school districts. Children with
disabilities also attend and participate in area vocational technical
schools (80), charter schools (47), approved private schools (33), and
private schools (2,484).

Thirty-four agencies, including 27 intermediate units, six school
districts, and one private provider, provide services to eligible
preschool students ages three through five. In Fiscal Year 1998-99,
27,269 children were served in these programs.

# I: PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION AND ADMINISTRATION

The State lead agency is responsible for developing and maintaining a
Statewide, comprehensive, coordinated, multidisciplinary, interagency
early intervention system. Administration, supervision and monitoring of
the early intervention system are essential to ensure that each eligible
child and family receives the services needed to enhance the development
of infants and toddlers with disabilities and to minimize their
potential for developmental delay. Early intervention services are
provided by a wide variety of public and private entities. Through
supervision and monitoring, the State ensures that all agencies and
individuals providing early intervention services meet the requirements
of IDEA, whether or not they receive funds under Part C.

While each State must meet its general supervisory and administrative
responsibilities, the State may determine how that will be accomplished.
Mechanisms such as interagency agreements and/or contracts with other
State-level or private agencies can serve as vehicles for the lead
agency's implementation of its monitoring responsibilities. The State's
role in supervision and monitoring includes: (1) identifying areas in
which implementation does not comply with Federal requirements; (2)
providing assistance in correcting identified problems; and (3) as
needed, using enforcing mechanisms to ensure correction of identified
problems.

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

Pennsylvania's self-assessment document identified strengths and areas
of concern in its early intervention system. Some of the strengths noted
by the Steering Committee include that the State has many sources of
consistent, comprehensive data to assist in the assessment of its system
and that data are used in training development and improvement and in
tracking satisfaction with training and the numbers of participants. The
State monitors early intervention programs on a yearly basis. DPW
receives approximately twelve Part C complaints annually and conducts
mediations in a timely manner. The Steering Committee also noted that in
the area of General Supervision, the State did not have sufficient data
to determine if non-compliance issues identified in local monitoring
activities were addressed in a timely fashion or if children continued
to receive services during resolution of disputes. More information is
also needed to determine whether some delays in services were due to
payment disputes. Other areas of concern identified in the
self-assessment were related to systematic data collection in the areas
of complaints, mediation and due process. Data are not available to
determine whether the effectiveness and appropriate provision of early
intervention services increases as a result of complaint investigations,
mediation and due process hearings. The Steering Committee also noted
that there is no training evaluation format to determine if training
meets the needs of providers.

Based on information obtained through the self-assessment, the public
input process, review of monitoring reports, local applications, and
local and State procedures, OSEP identified the following concerns: (1)
completeness of monitoring procedures to ensure provision of early
intervention services and compliance with Part C; (2) adequacy of
training to ensure compliance with the Individualized Family Service
Plan (IFSP) process, service coordination, family-centered services and
natural environments; (3) effectiveness of monitoring activities to
ensure speakers of other languages are adequately served; and (4)
effectiveness of the State's guidance concerning child find, public
awareness and transition activities.

During the Validation Planning week, OSEP collected additional
information on the issues identified through the validation planning
process and data related to the Lead Agency's responsibility for
supervision and administration of the early intervention program. OSEP
collected these data from parents, service providers, State agency
staff, local program providers and administrators, State and local
Interagency Coordinating Council members and other interagency staff
involved in provision of services to infants and toddlers across
Pennsylvania. Analysis of the data collected resulted in identification
of the following strengths.

## A. STRENGTHS OR PROMISING PRACTICES

**1. [Early Intervention Technical Assistance]{.underline}**

Pennsylvania legislation specifies that two percent of its early
intervention funds be utilized for the provision of training and
technical assistance to parents, programs and State and local staff that
provide services to children from birth to school age and their
families. The Pennsylvania Early Intervention Technical Assistance
System (EITA) provides training and technical assistance based on
individual county technical assistance plans or Statewide initiatives to
address systemic concerns. The training and technical assistance
activities are also based on monitoring findings, self-assessments,
county profiles, local stakeholder assessments, relevant research and
locally identified needs. The System assigns technical assistance staff
members to each local county to assist in the implementation of that
county's improvement plan*.* Examples of local regions' improvement plan
activities under the guidance of this system are the transition
initiatives noted by OSEP during monitoring activities in several
regions, and the Parent Teachback activities in another region. These
activities are further described in relevant sections of this report;
the Family-Centered System of Services section and the Transition
section.

The Early Intervention Technical Assistance system develops statewide
and regional technical assistance initiatives through analysis of
Statewide date, including regional/Statewide needs assessments, and
relevant research. Statewide priority initiatives are determined
annually. Each Statewide priority initiative plan considers the
involvement of families as co-presenters and participants, research, the
link to institutes of higher education, and the information needed by
departmental staff for overall planning purposes.

In addition to serving families and the county early intervention
programs, the Early Intervention Technical Assistance System serves the
PDE's Bureau of Special Education, and the Department of Health
Divisions of Maternal and Child Health, Drug and Alcohol Programs, and
HIV/AIDS programs. Other agencies that receive training include, but are
not limited to, school districts, Head Start and Early Head Start, child
care providers, State and local interagency councils, and Drug and
Alcohol agency staff.

**2. [Early Intervention Reporting System (EIRS)]{.underline}**

DPW created Pennsylvania's Early Intervention Reporting System (EIRS) to
track the progress of children through the Early Intervention Service
System and to track the types of service made available. The data system
uses a distributed data entry and collection procedure whereby
information on children who have been referred or are receiving services
is entered and stored electronically in the county early intervention
offices rather than in a central location. This system not only
distributes the burden of data entry, but permits the staff closest to
the child and family to control and manage the data that is assimilated
into a Statewide database. The State lead agency accesses the system's
central computer to perform Statewide analysis and reporting.

Features of the Early Intervention Reporting System include the
user-friendly interface compatibility with Macintosh and Windows, the
ability to review data on a county, regional, and Statewide level, the
ability to access child-specific information for planning and monitoring
purposes, and the built-in querying and reporting tools to generate
sophisticated reports on county, regional and Statewide levels. The
software can be adapted to be web-enabled and allows for modification of
the database structure based on changing needs of users. It also allows
for import of specified data from other data sources and for export of
data from the Early Intervention Resource System for use in other
software including Microsoft Excel and Word. This system has the
built-in ability to encrypt and compress files and to make use of the
First Class electronic mail system that allows for easy data
transmission and additional bulletin board features.

# II. PART C: CHILD FIND/PUBLIC AWARENESS

The needs of infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families
are generally met through a variety of agencies. However, prior to the
enactment of Part C of IDEA, there was little coordination or
collaboration of service provision, and many families had difficulty
locating and obtaining needed services. Searching for resources placed a
great strain on families.

With the passage of Part C in 1986, Congress sought to assure that all
children needing services would be identified, evaluated, and served,
especially those children who are typically underrepresented, (e.g.,
minority, low-income, inner-city, Indian and rural populations), through
an interagency, coordinated, multidisciplinary system of early
intervention services.

Each State's early intervention system must include child find and
public awareness activities that are coordinated and collaborated with
all other child find efforts in the State. Part C recognizes the need
for early referral and short timelines for evaluation as development
occurs at a more rapid rate during the first three years of life than at
any other age. Early brain development research has demonstrated what
early interventionists have known for years, that children begin to
learn and develop from the moment of birth. Therefore, the facilitation
of early learning, and the provision of timely early intervention
services to infants and toddlers with disabilities is critical.

#### Validation Planning and Data Collection

The State's self-assessment for Part C in the area of Child Find and
Public Awareness identified strengths which included the following: (1)
the Statewide Early Intervention Reporting System (EIRS) provides
information on child find that supports policy decisions, (2) the Office
of Mental Retardation provides bulletins to clarify child find
procedures, (3) DPW tracks at-risk children, (4) DPW serves increased
numbers of children, despite the decrease in the birth rate since 1996,
and (5) a variety of funding sources are available to support child find
efforts. The concerns identified by the Steering committee are that
there may be an under-identification of children from multicultural,
ethnic and underrepresented populations not targeted in county child
find activities, and public awareness and child find materials that are
not consistently translated when needed.

One of the focus questions asked during the public input meetings was:
"Are there barriers to the process of referring infants and toddlers to
the Early Intervention system, or in obtaining evaluations?" Concerns
stated during the public input meetings included: (1) children not
identified before the age of three, (2) lack of referrals in a timely
manner by hospitals and doctors, (3) lack of general public awareness
about the early intervention system, and (4) lack of public awareness
materials, especially for minorities and speakers of other languages.

Based on information from the self-assessment completed by the Steering
Committee, the public input sessions, monitoring reports and the annual
report, OSEP determined that additional data should be collected during
the Validation Data Collection week to validate the following
concerns/issues: (1) children not being served due to delays in referral
by primary referral sources; (2) lack of available information designed
for families to learn about early intervention services; (3) child find
and public awareness activities not reaching all primary referral
sources; and (4) insufficient culturally-competent public awareness
materials.

To investigate these child find and public awareness issues, OSEP
collected data from parents, service providers, service coordinators,
local programs, interagency collaborators and central office personnel
throughout Pennsylvania. OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and
identified the following strength and areas of non-compliance.

## A. STRENGTH

**[Central Interagency Referral System]{.underline}**

Pennsylvania has a coordinated, interagency system that functions as a
central referral-intake point of entry. This system represents agencies
that provide a variety of education, health and social services. The
system can be accessed throughout the State through a toll-free number
that is widely publicized. Potential service recipients are directed by
certified referral counselors to the appropriate service based on
articulated family needs. This system can lead to a more timely,
appropriate identification of families in need of early intervention
services.

## B. AREA OF NON-COMPLIANCE

**[Public Awareness/Child Find Activities are not sufficient to ensure
that all children are identified, especially the traditionally
under-served populations.]{.underline}**

Each State's early intervention system must include child find
activities to ensure that all infants and toddlers in the State who are
eligible for services are identified, located and evaluated. 34 CFR
§303.321(b)(1). The child find system must include procedures for use by
primary referral sources for referring a child to the early intervention
program. The procedures must provide for an effective method of making
referrals by primary referral sources and include procedures for
determining the extent to which primary referral sources disseminate
information prepared by the lead agency on the availability of early
intervention services to parents of infants and toddles with
disabilities. 34 CFR §303.321(d). The public awareness program must
focus on the early identification of children who are eligible to
receive early intervention services and must include the preparation and
dissemination to all primary referral sources of materials for parents
on the availability of early intervention. See 34 CFR §§303.320. To
clarify this requirement, the note following 34 CFR §303.320 indicates
than an effective public awareness program would be ongoing, have
coverage broad enough to reach the general public, and include a variety
of methods to inform the public about the provisions or Part C.
Furthermore, the system must meet the needs of historically
underrepresented populations, particularly minority, low income,
inner-city and rural populations, (§34 CFR 303.1(d)) and must insure
that the families of traditionally underserved groups have access to
culturally competent services within their local geographical areas. §34
CFR 303.128(b)

DPW provides early intervention services for 8,189 of its infants and
toddlers or 1.95% of its total birth to through age two population
compared to a national average of 1.78% (U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Special Education, Data Analysis System: December, 1999). This
has occurred despite a record of decreasing birth rates in the State
since 1996. Additionally, the Pennsylvania Self-assessment states that "
as long as we are identifying the appropriate number of children, there
is no need to increase referral sources." Nevertheless, OSEP found that
physicians are not referring in a timely manner and that public
awareness activities are not sufficient to ensure that the public,
including families, physicians, and the traditionally under served
populations, are informed about the provisions of the Part C program.

DPW has not ensured that all children who may be eligible for early
intervention services are identified, located and evaluated, and that
its child find system includes procedures that provide for an effective
method of making referrals to the early intervention program manner in a
timely manner by primary referral sources. DPW also has not ensured that
procedures are in place to determine the extent to which primary
referral sources disseminate information to parents.

Parents of eligible children in every area visited told OSEP that their
doctors did not refer children to the early intervention program in a
timely manner. Physicians reportedly told parents to wait and see if the
child "outgrows" the delay or to wait until the child was at least one
year old before requesting early intervention services, and parents
reported that this caused a delay in services for their child. Parents
in three counties reported that many physicians referred their family
directly to their local private clinic and did not discuss the early
intervention program as an option for services until their private
insurance had been depleted. Service coordinators concurred that
physicians tend to refer children in need of services to private clinics
instead of the early intervention program. In other counties, parents
reported that physicians told them that the early intervention program
is a social program for the poor and that the children of working
parents are not eligible for services. Parents in several counties said
that doctors had no knowledge of the early intervention program and
these parents found out about the early intervention program from other
sources. Other parents reported that it was only because of their
persistence in expressing their concerns to the physician that they were
able to get a referral for early intervention services. Two parents of
children with Down Syndrome, whose physicians neglected to refer their
children to early intervention, reported that they found out about
services from other parents via the Internet. All of the parents whose
children were not referred in a timely manner expressed concern that
their child had missed out on needed early intervention services.

Service coordinators, providers and administrators in several areas
reported that physicians were generally not supportive of early
intervention, did not believe in early intervention services, and would
not refer children without a clearly diagnosed disability.
Administrators in one area reported that they were aware that doctors
and hospitals did not refer families and had been unable to gain the
cooperation of the medical community to refer to the early intervention
program in a timely manner. The administrator and service coordinators
in two areas reported that no formal efforts had been made to educate
the local physicians in the last two years. Concurring with reports from
parents, service coordinators and providers informed OSEP that
pediatricians tell families that early intervention is a social program
only for low-income families or that services were for children with a
diagnosis only.

Service coordinators, service providers and administrators from across
the State attributed these late referrals to several factors that
included a lack of knowledge within the medical community about the
availability of early intervention services, physician preference to
refer to a private clinic, and physicians who did not support early
intervention. Service coordinators stated that the practice by
physicians of referring to private clinics for services is a primary
reason that children were referred late to the early intervention
program possibly denying other early intervention services that the
child may be eligible to receive. Administrators in one area reported
that they knew that referrals for children tended to be at approximately
18 months age but the referrals had not been analyzed to determine the
causes for the late referrals. Service providers and local interagency
coordinating council members in two counties reported that they have
observed an increase in the number of referrals from physicians but
these increases have been typically for children around 18 months of
age. Seventy-eight of the Individual Family Service Plans that OSEP
reviewed identified 15 cases where children were not referred to the
early intervention system until approximately one year of age in spite
of clearly established conditions such as blindness, Down Syndrome,
extreme pre-maturity (24-26 months) or spina bifida. DPW must ensure
that the system of early intervention services is coordinated with
existing services and programs in the State, such as private clinics. By
not ensuring that infants and toddlers who may be eligible for services
are referred to the early intervention program in a timely manner, DPW
may be denying children and their families the rights, protections,
service coordination and services they would be entitled to receive
under an IFSP.

DPW has not ensured that its public awareness activities adequately
inform the general public, including families, physicians, or other
primary referral sources about the early intervention program. DPW has
not ensured that public awareness materials are available in all
languages necessary to inform traditionally underrepresented populations
in the State.

Parents in each county visited by OSEP reported that public awareness
materials and activities are inadequate to ensure that families,
physicians or other primary referral sources are informed about early
intervention services. Parents reported that they did not see early
intervention information in the community nor did they see or hear
public awareness information about the program in any other media
format. Parents also reported that information was not seen in their
physician's office or other public offices. Parents in one county
recommended that early intervention information be available from
sources other than the physician because the physicians in their
community were resistant to providing this information to parents.
Service coordinators and administrators in several areas said that there
was not sufficient information for the general public to be aware of
early intervention services.

Service providers in two areas, including a large, urban district,
reported that families who live in more affluent, predominantly white
neighborhoods were not represented in the program because these areas
were not targeted in the public awareness activities. A provider in a
large, urban area with a diverse cultural population reported that all
early intervention materials were either printed in Spanish or English
and did not include outreach to the Asian and Italian communities.
Service coordinators and administrators in two counties with a large
number of homeless shelters reported that outreach efforts to homeless
shelters were not conducted, even though they had a few referrals from
families who lived in homeless shelters. Several administrators reported
that there is insufficient public awareness information in the general
public and further added that children in the more rural areas were the
most likely to be overlooked based on the current child/find and public
awareness activities in their counties. The Pennsylvania State
Self-Assessment report states that "there may be under-identified
children based on specific, multicultural, ethnic or under served
groups" and proposes improvements to help counties to determine if they
are identifying, through child find, the targeted multicultural, ethnic
and other under-represented groups.

# III. PART C: EARLY INTERVENTION SERVICES IN NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

In creating the Part C legislation, Congress recognized the urgent need
to ensure that all infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families receive early intervention services according to their
individual needs. Three of the principles on which Part C was enacted
include: (1) enhancing the child's developmental potential, (2)
enhancing the capacity of families to meet the needs of their infant or
toddler with disabilities, and (3) improving and expanding existing
early intervention services being provided to children with disabilities
and their families.

To assist families in this process, Congress also requires that each
family be provided with a service coordinator, to act as a single point
of contact for the family. The service coordinator assures the rights of
children and families are provided, arranges for assessments and IFSP
meetings and facilitates the provision of needed services. The service
coordinator coordinates required early intervention services, as well as
medical and other services the child and the child's family may need.
With a single point of contact, families are relieved of the burden of
searching for essential services, negotiating with multiple agencies and
trying to coordinate their own service needs.

Part C requires the development and implementation of an IFSP for each
eligible child. The evaluation, assessment, and IFSP process is designed
to ensure that appropriate evaluation and assessments of the unique
needs of the child and of the family, related to the enhancing the
development of their child, are conducted in a timely manner. Parents
are active members of the IFSP multidisciplinary team. The team must
take into consideration all the information gleaned from the evaluation
and child and family assessments, in determining the appropriate
services needed to meet the needs.

The IFSP must also include a statement of the natural environments in
which early intervention services will be provided for the child.
Children with disabilities should receive services in community settings
and places where normally developing children would be found, so that
they will not be denied opportunities that all children have - to be
included in all aspects of our society. In 1991, Congress required that
early intervention services be provided in natural environments. This
requirement was further reinforced by the addition of a new requirement
in 1997 that early intervention could occur in a setting other than a
natural environment only when early intervention cannot be achieved
satisfactorily for the infant or toddler in a natural environment. In
the event that early intervention cannot be satisfactorily achieved in a
natural environment, the IFSP must include a justification of the
extent, if any, to which the services will not be provided in a natural
environment.

#### Validation Planning and Data Collection

The State's self-assessment related to the provision of early
intervention services in natural environments identified strengths and
concerns. Included among those identified strengths are the following:
(1) sufficient number of service coordinators allowing a ratio of one to
35 families, (2) provision of early intervention services in natural
environments increased and numbers of children served in segregated
centers decreased, and, (3) sufficient numbers of providers and
personnel to meet identified needs of children and their families. Areas
of concern identified in the self assessment document included: (1) not
all evaluations and assessments are completed and IFSP meetings held
within the 45-day time limit, (2) service coordinators do not always
have a clear knowledge of all funding sources, and (3) the range of
community locations for provision of early intervention services is not
reflected on the IFSP.

During the public input meetings, the following issues and concerns were
identified: (1) parents expressed concerns that service coordinators
were not able to meet their needs, and did not assist in coordinating
services; (2) service coordinators are unfamiliar with the availability
of many local and State programs and how to access them; (3) service
coordinators are unaware of resources; and, (4) parents were not
provided adequate information during transition. Additionally, other
concerns identified were that information on funding sources was not
adequately explained to parents; service coordinators and providers may
not have sufficient training in child development to assist parents,
especially parents of deaf and hard of hearing children; and that
non-required services, such as medical services, that the child or
family were receiving were not on the IFSP. Other issues identified
included identification of the natural environment; parent choice in
determining location of services; service coordinators not assisting
parents in development of outcomes; and lack of availability for some
services.

From the State's monitoring reports, public input meetings, and other
information, OSEP determined that additional data should be collected
during the Validation Data Collection week in the following areas: (1)
determination of eligibility; (2) adequacy of services; (3) the process
for identifying natural environments; (4) service coordination
activities; and, (5) families obtaining their own services.

To investigate these issues, OSEP collected data from local programs,
parents, service providers, service coordinators, interagency
collaborators and central office staff personnel. OSEP reviewed and
analyzed the data and identified the following strengths and areas of
non-compliance.

## A. STRENGTHS

**1. [Natural Environments System Change]{.underline}**

DPW undertook a massive systems change several years ago to ensure that
children would receive early intervention services in natural
environments. Prior to passage of Part C, Pennsylvania had funded
services in segregated centers. This was a difficult transition for
service providers, center providers and some families. During OSEP\'s
monitoring trip, the primary location for provision of early
intervention services identified by parents, service coordinators and
administrators was the home. While this is an indication of DPW's
success in decreasing the use of segregated centers, the finding below
indicates that the Part C requirements concerning the provision of early
intervention services in natural environments have not been fully met.

**2. [Local Interagency Coordination]{.underline}**

Pennsylvania has local Interagency Coordinating Councils functioning in
each county, and for some parts of the State, one Interagency
Coordinating Council serves several counties. Most of these Interagency
Councils are very effective in identifying issues in the delivery of
services and designing and implementing strategies to effectively
address these issues. OSEP heard from many of these council members that
the communication and cooperation among agencies has improved through
the work of the Council and is very effective in moving the early
intervention system forward in their respective areas.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [IFSPs Do Not Include All Early Intervention Services or Medical
and Other Services that the Child and Family Need]{.underline}**

Each IFSP must include a statement of the specific early intervention
services necessary to meet the unique needs of the child and the family
to achieve the outcomes identified in §303.344(c). 34 CFR §303.344(d).
The regulations define \"early intervention services\" at 34 CFR
§303.12(a), as:

\"services that (1) Are designed to meet the developmental needs of each
child eligible under this part and the needs of the family related to
enhancing the child\'s development; (2) Are selected in collaboration
with the parents; (3) Are provided-(i) Under public supervision; (ii) By
qualified personnel, as defined in §303.21, including the types of
personnel listed in paragraph (e) of this section; (iii) In conformity
with an individualized family service plan; and (iv) At no cost, unless,
subject to §303.520(b)(3), Federal or State law provides for a system of
payments by families, including a schedule of sliding fees; and (4) Meet
the standards of the State, including the requirements of \[Part C\].\"
At 34 CFR §303.12(d), the regulations provide definitions for a
non-exhaustive list of 16 types of services that are included within the
definition of \"early intervention services.\"

Whether or not a particular service is included in the non-exhaustive
list of 16 types of services in §303.12(d), the IFSP team must include a
service in a child\'s IFSP ***as an early intervention service,*** if
the team determines that the service is necessary to meet the
developmental needs of the child and/or the needs of the family related
to enhancing the child\'s development. Thus, for example, if the IFSP
team determines that the eligible child or the family of an infant or
toddler with a disability needs a service that is not identified in the
regulations, but is a service that the child or family needs in order to
meet the developmental needs of the child under Part C and/or to meet
the needs of the family related to enhancing the child\'s development,
the IFSP team must include that service in the IFSP as an early
intervention service.

34 CFR §303.344(e) requires that, to the extent appropriate, the IFSP
must also include-(i) medical and other services that the child needs,
but that are not required under Part C, and (ii) the funding sources to
be used in paying for those services or the steps that will be taken to
secure those services through public or private sources. (This
requirement does not apply to routine medical services (e.g.,
immunizations and \`\`well-baby\'\' care), unless a child needs those
services and the services are not otherwise available or being
provided.) Note 3 following §303.344 stresses the importance of
including such other services in an IFSP. That notes states, in part
that, \" While listing the non-required services in the IFSP does not
mean that those services must be provided, their identification can be
helpful to both the child\'s family and the service coordinator, for the
following reasons: First, the IFSP would provide a comprehensive picture
of the child\'s total service needs (including the need for medical and
health services, as well as early intervention services). Second, it is
appropriate for the service coordinator to assist the family in securing
the non-required services (e.g., by (1) determining if there is a public
agency that could provide financial assistance, if needed, (2) assisting
in the preparation of eligibility claims or insurance claims, if needed,
and (3) assisting the family in seeking out and arranging for the child
to receive the needed medical-health services). Thus, to the extent
appropriate, it is important for a State\'s procedures under this part
to provide for ensuring that other needs of the child, and of the family
related to enhancing the development of the child, such as medical and
health needs, are considered and addressed\...\"

> **(a) [IFSPs do not include all early intervention services needed by
> the child or the child's family]{.underline}**

In all areas of the State that OSEP visited, service coordinators and
administrators told OSEP that they did not include, as early
intervention services in the IFSP, specialized child care, special
feeding services, behavioral supports, social interventions, respite
care, as well as services identified in the regulations such as family
training and counseling, even if the team determines that the service is
necessary to meet the needs of the child or the family related to
enhancing the child\'s development. These service coordinators and
administrators explained that they may list such services on an IFSP as
\"community services,\" but that such \"community services\" are not
early intervention services. They said that they try to assist the
family in obtaining these services, but the early intervention system
was not responsible for providing these services. When OSEP raised this
issue with Lead Agency administrators, those administrators informed
OSEP that it was also DPW\'s understanding that Part C did not require
the Lead Agency to ensure the provision of family supports, such as
counseling or respite care, even if the team determines that the service
is necessary to meet the needs of the family related to enhancing the
child\'s development. The provision of family supports and services is
addressed in depth in section IV of this report, "Part C:
Family-Centered System of Services."

Once the Lead Agency has determined that an infant or toddler with a
disability is eligible to receive early intervention services under Part
C, the Lead Agency must ensure that the IFSP includes, and the child and
family receive, all of the early intervention services needed to meet
the developmental needs of the child and the needs of the family related
to enhancing the child\'s development. Even if a State requires, like
Pennsylvania, a 25% delay in development for a child to be eligible for
Part C services, the State may not require that the child have a 25%
delay in each specific developmental area in order to qualify for
specific early intervention services. Evaluators, service coordinators,
and providers in four areas visited told OSEP that a child must also be
25% delayed in a specific developmental area to receive services in that
discipline. Some providers and evaluators in this same area stated that
this was not the case and the child would receive services in areas of
need. Service coordinators stated that there was confusion among
evaluators and some providers about whether children needed to be
eligible in a specific discipline area in order to receive those
services.

> **(b) [Medical and "other" services not included on the
> IFSP]{.underline}**

OSEP also found that medical and other services that families received
or needed were not included on the IFSP. Service coordinators and
parents across the State told OSEP that service coordinators not only
did not include medical services or other services families needed on
the IFSP, they did not coordinate those services as required under 34
CFR §303.23. Parents reported that they were unaware that those services
could be included on the IFSP and further stated that they usually
obtained and coordinated these services on their own. According to
parents, sometimes the service coordinator provided them with a list of
resources, but parents did the searching for resources themselves. In
one area of the State (Dauphin) service coordinators, providers and
parents identified excellent assistance by service coordinators in
assisting parents in obtaining needed resources. This information was
recorded in detail in the service coordinators\' notes; nevertheless,
few, if any, of these family supports and services were recorded on the
IFSP.

**2. [IFSP Decision-Making Process Not Used to Determine the Natural
Environment for the Provision of Services and the Location of the
Services.]{.underline}**

The Part C regulations require, at 34 CFR §303.344(d)(1), that the IFSP
for each infant or toddler with a disability include a statement of the
specific early intervention services necessary to meet the unique needs
of the child and the family; the natural environments in which early
intervention services will be provided, and a justification of the
extent, if any, to which the services will not be provided in a natural
environment; and the location of services. See 34 CFR §303.344(d)(1)(ii)
and (iii). 34 CFR **§**303.12(b) states that to the maximum extent
appropriate to the needs of the child, early intervention services must
be provided in natural environments, including the home and community
settings in which children without disabilities participate. 34 CFR
**§**303.18 defines a natural environment as the settings that are
natural or normal for the child's age peers who have no disabilities. At
the IFSP meeting, the participants specified at 34 CFR §303.343[^1],
must develop all of the content of each child's IFSP, including the
statement of specific early intervention services, the natural
environment for the provision of services, and the location of the
services. The content of the IFSP must be based on the results of the
evaluation and assessment process in order to identify the unique
strengths and needs of the child and the family, and the services
appropriate to meet those needs. See 34 CFR §§303.322(c)(3)(iii) and
303.342.

DPW has not ensured that the IFSP team determines the natural
environments in which early intervention services will be provided and
the location of the services.

In enacting the Part C program, Congress recognized the importance of
family-centered services in improving results for infants and toddlers.
Parents are essential participants in planning and implementing early
intervention services, and Part C requires that parents be a part of
each IFSP meeting as a participant. Part C also recognizes the right of
a family to decline early intervention services. This emphasis on the
importance of the parents' role in developing and implementing their
child's IFSP does not, however, in any way diminish the responsibility
of the Lead Agency to ensure that each child's IFSP team, [as a
team]{.underline}, rather than the parent or any other individual
member(s) of the team, develops the child's IFSP, including decisions
about the services to be provided, the natural environment(s) and
location in which they will be provided. Thus, for example, if the IFSP
team determines that the early intervention needs of an infant or
toddler with a disability can be met in a natural environment or
environments, the Lead Agency may not justify providing early
intervention services in a setting that is not a natural environment
because of "parent choice" for a segregated environment.

In eight of the ten areas OSEP visited, parents, service providers, and
service coordinators told OSEP that decisions about location of service
were based on a variety of factors. In five of those eight regions, OSEP
heard that the decision about location of services is based on "parent
choice" according to parents and service providers. In two regions,
parents stated that they were told that early intervention services
could be provided only in the home. For a parent who worked, the
providers went to the home on the parent's day off in order to provide
services in the home instead of providing service in the environment of
the child during the day. Several administrators and service
coordinators told OSEP that the natural environment was only the home,
but they stated they did provide services in the community on occasion.
When asked why all early intervention services were provided in the
home, one provider stated that, "the home is the natural environment."
An administrator in another area stated, "If parents want \[services
in\] a center, then the justification included on the IFSP would be that
is what the parents chose." None of the interviewees stated that the
decision about the natural environment and location for services for an
individual child was determined by the participants at the IFSP meeting.
The question of whether the early intervention can effectively be
provided in a natural environment is not discussed at the IFSP meeting,
and the justification for not providing service in a natural environment
is recorded as "parent choice," according to service coordinators.

In other regions of the State, location of service provision is based on
availability of the service provider whether natural environments is
determined or not. As stated by some service coordinators, there is not
only one "natural environment" for families and children. Families do
have provider choices for location of service; if there are several
service providers available who would provide the service in the natural
environment then, as stated by these service coordinators, parent's
preference could be a factor in determining which provider will deliver
the services. However, the determination of the natural environment and
the location for service provision is an individualized determination
made by the participants at the IFSP meeting. These decisions must be
based on the information gathered during the child and family assessment
process, and be consistent with child and family needs as well as the
requirement to provide services in a natural environment.

## C. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS, AND THEIR FAMILIES

**1. [Evaluation and Assessment Procedures to Ensure Appropriate
Services]{.underline}**

Evaluators, service coordinators and administrators related a variety of
practices that could impact on determination of eligibility for children
in Pennsylvania. They included practices related to the evaluation and
assessment of vision and hearing, the use of clinical opinion in
determining eligibility, and the practice of determining children not
eligible for evaluation and assessment through screening.

> **(a) [Vision and hearing evaluation and assessment]{.underline}**

The evaluation and assessment for each child must include, among other
developmental areas, physical development, which includes vision and
hearing. See 34 CFR §303.322(c)(3)(ii)(B). Vision and hearing are being
evaluated in a variety of ways across the State, and in some instances,
OSEP could not ascertain if evaluations for vision and hearing were
conducted at all. In other instances, OSEP found a physician's report of
a hearing and vision evaluation, but no evidence of the result was
recorded on the IFSP. In other instances, service coordinators and
providers stated that vision and hearing was assessed by asking parents
if they had any concerns, and inappropriately, "no concerns by parent"
was entered on the IFSP. According to State standards, evaluations and
assessments must be conducted by qualified personnel. OSEP, however,
could not determine whether the parents in question were qualified
personnel or not. In other parts of the State, an otoscope was used for
hearing evaluation or a tympanogram was administered, or an assessment
provided by the School for the Deaf. Some areas were using an evaluative
tool from the School for the Blind, but there was no consistency across
the State. OSEP suggests that DPW, in order to ensure that all children
receive evaluations in hearing and vision, determine evaluation
techniques to be used across the State to ensure that valid techniques
are utilized as part of all comprehensive evaluations for children
referred to the early intervention system.

> **(b) [Use of Informed Clinical Opinion for Determination of
> Eligibility]{.underline}**

Each State must define developmental delay by describing the procedures,
including the use of informed clinical opinion, which will be used to
measure a child's development. See 34CFR §303.300(a)(1). The Part C
regulations further state that the evaluation and assessment of each
child must be based on informed clinical opinion (34CFR §303.322(c)(2)).
The use of informed clinical opinion is extremely important for infants
and toddlers as there are few standardized instruments to measure the
developmental levels of infants and toddlers, and evaluation instruments
tend to be less reliable and valid for very young children.

In several areas of the State, service providers told OSEP that there is
confusion about the use of informed clinical opinion to determine a
child's eligibility. In one area, during the same interview, OSEP heard
two opposing viewpoints. Consistent with the Part C regulations, one
evaluator stated and others concurred that clinical opinion could always
be used, and would be used if, in the informed clinical opinion of the
evaluator, the child was delayed even though the test scores did not
indicate a level of delay required for eligibility in the program.
Several evaluators in this interview disagreed, and one evaluator told
OSEP that the only time clinical opinion could be used is when there was
no instrument to measure the child's development in that particular
developmental area. For instance, according to this evaluator, clinical
opinion could not be used for motor development, as there is a
developmental protocol that would provide a developmental score in both
fine and gross motor. This same evaluator stated that clinical opinion
would usually not be used for speech, unless there was an articulation
problem as the tests used in Pennsylvania would not identify
articulation delays. In other areas of the State, OSEP heard that some
evaluators had never used clinical opinion and did not feel qualified to
do so, but in different regions, evaluators stated they had no
difficulty using clinical opinion and said they would use their informed
clinical opinion to determine a child eligible for services.

While the State's procedures are consistent with the Part C regulations
concerning the use of informed clinical opinion, OSEP suggests that DPW
may want to provide Statewide training on the use of informed clinical
opinion in evaluation and assessment procedures, and; through monitoring
activities, ensure that all children in the State are evaluated
according to requirements of Part C.

> **(c) [Determining Children Ineligible Without Completing Evaluation
> Activities]{.underline}**

Part C regulations require that each early intervention system must
include the performance of a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary
evaluation of each child, birth through age two, referred for
evaluation. See 34 CFR §303.322(a). The federal regulations also require
34 CFR §303.321(e)(2) that any child referred to the early invention
system because of a delay or a suspected delay would be evaluated in all
areas of development within 45 days of referral.

Children who are referred to the early intervention system because of a
delay or a suspected delay must receive a timely, comprehensive,
multidisciplinary evaluation according to the above federal regulations.
Service coordinators, intake coordinators and administrators in two
areas of the State told OSEP that when parents call their program, an
intake coordinator interviews the parent over the phone about their
child's development. Based on this telephone interview information, the
interviewer makes a determination regarding whether the child would
receive an evaluation or would be put on "tracking." If put on tracking,
the parent is told they could call back at any time if they had other
concerns, but the child's development would be "tracked," meaning that
follow-up phone calls would be made to the parent.

OSEP suggests that DPW further investigate these practices to ensure
that children who are referred because they are experiencing a
developmental delay or a suspected developmental delay receive a
complete and timely evaluation to determine eligibility.

**2. [Development of the IFSP]{.underline}**

Each eligible child and the child's family is entitled to receive a
written individualized family service plan developed by a
multidisciplinary team, including the parents, 34 CFR §§303.342 and
303.343. The plan must be developed at an IFSP meeting and, for a child
evaluated for the first time and determined to be eligible, the meeting
to develop the initial IFSP must be conducted within the 45 day time
period specified in 34 CFR §303.321(e)(2). See 34 CFR §303.342(a). The
participants at the meeting must include the parent, an advocate, if the
parent requests that person to participate, the service coordinator, a
person or persons directly involved in conducting the evaluations and
assessments, and, as appropriate, persons who will be providing services
to the child or family. 34 CFR §303.343(a)(1). If a person who conducted
the evaluations and assessments is unable to attend a meeting,
arrangements must be made for the person's involvement through other
means. See 34 CFR §303.343(a)(2). The IFSP must contain a statement of
specific early intervention services necessary to meet the unique needs
of the infant or toddler and the family, including the frequency,
intensity, and method of delivering the services, as well as the
projected dates for initiation of services. See 34 CFR §303.344(d)(1).
Multidisciplinary means the involvement of two or more disciplines or
professions in the provision of integrated and coordinated services,
including evaluation and assessment activities in 34 CFR §303.322 and
development of the IFSP in 34 CFR §303.342. See 34 CFR §303.17

In several of the areas visited by OSEP in Pennsylvania, the IFSP was
developed with only the service coordinator and the parent at the IFSP
meeting. Service coordinators, service providers, and parents told OSEP
that after completion of the evaluations and assessments by the
Multidisciplinary Evaluation team, if the IFSP is not developed at the
same time, it is written later without the involvement of the evaluation
team members. Service coordinators further stated that if the parent did
not want to develop the IFSP immediately after completion of evaluations
and assessments with those professionals present, the service
coordinator returned to the home at some later date and the parent and
the service coordinator completed the IFSP. The Part C regulations
require that the IFSP be developed at the initial IFSP meeting, and that
it must be developed by a multidisciplinary team which includes the
parent, the service coordinator, and a person or persons directly
involved in conducting the evaluations and assessments. See 34 CFR
§§303.342 and 303.343. Part C regulations (34 CFR §303.343(a)(2)) state
that if the evaluators cannot attend the IFSP meeting, they can be
represented by their written report, telephone, or by having a
knowledgeable, authorized representative attend the IFSP meeting.
Service coordinators told OSEP that they did not consider themselves
qualified to determine the appropriate amount of service for eligible
children based on the evaluation and assessment report. Although they
usually tried to contact the evaluation team members to ascertain the
appropriate services, frequency and intensity, this was not always
possible and sometimes they used their best judgment and based services
on "what the parent wanted."

OSEP suggests that DPW review its local policies and procedures for
development of the IFSP to ensure that if a person or persons directly
involved in conducting the evaluations and assessments is unable to
attend the IFSP meeting or to participate in a telephone conference
call, a knowledgeable authorized representative attends, or pertinent
records are available which enable the IFSP participants to develop an
IFSP that is based on the child's evaluations and assessments.

# IV. PART C: FAMILY-CENTERED SYSTEM OF SERVICES

Research has shown that improved outcomes for young children are most
likely to occur when services are based on the premise that parents or
primary caregivers are the most important factors influencing a child's
development. Family-centered practices as those in which families are
involved in all aspects of the decision-making, families' culture and
values are respected, and families are provided with accurate and
sufficient information to be able to make informed decisions. A
family-centered approach keeps the focus on the developmental needs of
the child, while including family concerns and needs in the
decision-making process. Family-centered practices include establishing
trust and rapport with families, and helping families develop skills to
best meet their child's needs.

Parents and other family members are recognized as the linchpins of Part
C. As such, States must include parents as an integral part of
decision-making and service provision, from assessments through
development of the IFSP, to transition activities before their child
turns three. Parents bring a wealth of knowledge about their own child
and family's abilities and dreams for their future, as well as an
understanding of the community in which they live.

In 1986, Part C of the IDEA was recognized as the first piece of Federal
legislation to specifically focus attention on the needs of the family
related to enhancing the development of children with disabilities. In
enacting Part C, Congress acknowledged the need to support families and
enhance their capacity to meet the needs of their infants and toddlers
with disabilities. On the cutting edge of education legislation, Part C
challenged systems of care to focus on the family as the unit of
services, rather than the child. Viewing the child in the context of
her/his family and the family in the context of their community,
Congress created certain challenges for States as they designed and
implemented a family-centered system of services.

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

The State's self-assessment identified several strengths related to the
Family Centered Services Cluster area. Those strengths included the
following: (1) State initiatives resulted in increased parent
involvement, (2) policies and procedures support family-centered
services, (a variety of formats are in place for training and technical
assistance to parents), (3) the State has involved families from
multicultural groups, and (4) parent participation in planning and
implementation in state improvement activities has increased. Concerns
identified in the self-assessment are: (1) dissemination of information
and training availability is not coordinated and accessible by parents,
(2) few parents participate in joint provider/parent training, (3)
parents are not sufficiently involved in local interagency coordinating
councils and task forces, and (4) there is a lack of data concerning
involvement of multicultural populations.

During the public input meetings, participants identified the following
areas of concern: child find was not effective with culturally diverse
families; materials were not available in a variety of formats,
languages, and locations; parents did not receive adequate assistance
from service coordinators; culturally competent services were not
available in all geographic areas; and families do not get information
on the early intervention system from primary referral sources in a
timely manner.

Based on the information collected from the self assessment, public
input sessions, and State documents, the following concerns were
identified to investigate during the Validation Data Collection week:
(1) parents not informed of options; (2) lack of identification of
family supports and services; and, (3) lack of assistance from service
coordinators and service providers in identifying outcomes for their
child.

To investigate the issues identified through the validation planning
process, OSEP collected data from local programs, parents and providers
throughout Pennsylvania relative to the involvement of parents in the
IFSP process and the training of parents and staff. OSEP found the
following strength and area of noncompliance.

## A. STRENGTH/ PROMISING PRACTICE

**[Promising Practice: Parent Teachback]{.underline}**

An activity of the State's Early Intervention Technical Assistance
System (EITA) is guidance in improvement strategies for parent
involvement. To implement their improvement plan, one region has
augmented the use of parent focus groups to obtain information to
improve services to children and families. In Dauphin County, the early
intervention program systematically uses information obtained from
parent focus groups to develop what they call "Parent Teachback"
sessions, where parents "teach" and answer questions from parents of
newly identified children and providers of early intervention services.
This includes using the information from parent focus groups to develop
a set of questions. Then parents are identified to respond to the
questions, and these responses are used to train staff and to help
parents coming into the system. These activities resulted in changes in
procedures for the provision of service coordination and in service
delivery to families of children with autism. Also as a result of these
activities, printed materials were developed about connecting with the
community, family recommendations on transition, and writing evaluation
reports with families as the main source of information. Both providers
and parents stated that these activities improved services for children
and families, as well as communication among providers and between
families and providers. The State Early Intervention Technical
Assistance System uses the results of this assistance to distribute this
information across the State.

## B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**[Family Supports and Services Not Identified or Included on the
IFSP]{.underline}**

Under Part C, each eligible infant or toddler with a disability and the
child\'s family are entitled to receive early intervention services that
are "... designed to meet the developmental needs of each child eligible
under \[Part C\] [and the needs of the family related to enhancing the
child\'s development]{.underline}\..." Emphasis added. 34 CFR
§303.12(a)(1). Further, the non-exhaustive list of types of early
intervention services in 34 CFR §300.12(d) specifically includes
\"family training, counseling, and home visits." As explained in the
note following §303.12, \"The lists of services in \[§303.12(d) is\] ...
not exhaustive. Early intervention services may include such services as
the provision of respite and other family support services." As defined
at 34 CFR §303.23, \"service coordination\" includes serving as the
single point of contact in helping parents to obtain the services and
assistance they need.

Section 303.322(a)(1) requires \"the performance of a timely,
comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation of each child, birth through
age two, referred for evaluation, [and a family-directed identification
of the needs of each child\'s family to appropriately assist in the
development of the child]{.underline}.\" Emphasis added. Under 34 CFR
§303.322(b)(2), \"assessment\" means \"the ongoing procedures used by
appropriate qualified personnel throughout the period of a child\'s
eligibility under this part to identify (i) The child\'s unique
strengths and needs and the services appropriate to meet those needs;
and (ii) [The resources, priorities, and concerns of the family and the
supports and services necessary to enhance the family\'s capacity to
meet the developmental needs of their infant or toddler with a
disability]{.underline}.\" Emphasis added. Section 303.322(d) further
requires that:

(1) Family assessments under \[Part C\] must be family-directed and
    designed to determine the resources, priorities, and concerns of the
    family and the identification of the supports and services necessary
    to enhance the family\'s capacity to meet the developmental needs of
    the child.

(2) Any assessment that is conducted must be voluntary on the part of
    the family.

(3) If an assessment of the family is carried out, the assessment
    must (i) Be conducted by personnel trained to utilize appropriate
    methods and procedures; (ii) Be based on information provided by the
    family through a personal interview; and (iii) Incorporate the
    family\'s description of its resources, priorities, and concerns
    related to enhancing the child\'s development.

The IFSP for each infant or toddler with a disability must, along with
other information, include: (1) with the concurrence of the family, a
statement of \"the family\'s resources, priorities, and concerns related
to enhancing the development of the child\" (34 CFR §303.344(b)); (2)
\"a statement of the major outcomes expected to be achieved for the
child [and family]{.underline}\...\[emphasis added\]\" (34 CFR
§303.344(c)); and (3) \"a statement of the specific early intervention
services necessary to meet the unique needs of the child [and the
family]{.underline} ... \[emphasis added\]\" (34 CFR §303.344(d)).

DPW has not ensured that the assessment of each child identified the
resources, priorities and concerns of the family and the supports and
services necessary to enhance the family\'s capacity to meet the
developmental needs of their child. In addition, DPW has not ensured
that IFSPs include the services and supports needed to meet the unique
needs of the child's family.

Service coordinators, parents and administrators identified a variety of
activities related to the identification of family needs, and supports
and services to meet those needs, but OSEP did not find consistent
formal or informal family assessment activities implemented throughout
the State. In several areas, service coordinators and administrators
told OSEP there was no family assessment tool and a family assessment
was not conducted. Families confirmed that they were not asked about
needs although sometimes service coordinators provided information to
assist them in locating their own resources. In other areas of the
State, service coordinators and administrators informed OSEP that the
service coordinator asked the parents if they needed any services.
Families concurred that they were asked, but since they were unaware of
the resources they might need or resources and services that were
available, they did not know what to ask for. Some parents of older
children stated they wished they had been aware of resources and
services that were available when their child was first identified, but
no one told them about these resources and services for parents. In
other areas of the State, service coordinators told OSEP that they used
a "social history" to assist in identification of family needs, but
across the State, service coordinators and administrators stated that
there was not a consistent or formal method of ensuring that family
needs were assessed, documented and services and supports provided to
meet family needs to assist in the development of their child.

Service coordinators across the State told OSEP that they do not use a
formal assessment tool to identify family needs and assessments. In one
area, service coordinators and administrators stated that there is a
needs assessment in the back of the family handbook, but they do not use
it in identifying family needs or the supports and services to address
those needs. Service coordinators and administrators told OSEP that no
real family assessment is conducted. Some families remembered that the
service coordinator had asked them if there was anything they needed
when the IFSP was first developed, but the service coordinators did not
ask about on-going needs after the initial time. Administrators and
service coordinators concurred that there was not a standard procedure
used across the State to evaluate and identify family needs, concerns,
resources and priorities and to assist in the identification of supports
and services needed. Some areas in the State used an interview form that
addressed some family needs, but, as stated earlier, this was not found
across the State.

In several areas of the State, OSEP found evidence in some early
intervention record notes that many services to support families had
been provided, but the family support was not documented on the IFSP.
Service coordinators in all areas of the State said that they did not
consider family supports, services, respite care or other family
services to be early intervention services. 34 CFR §303.344 states that
outcomes for the child and family must be identified on the IFSP, as
well as the services to meet those needs to assist the family to enhance
the development of their child. When asked about a specific service,
such as respite care or specialized childcare, service coordinators,
providers and administrators across the State told OSEP that since these
services were not early intervention services, they would not be
included on the IFSP. Service coordinators and administrators also told
OSEP that if a family requested respite care services, the service
coordinator would provide referral information, but that these services
would not be included on the IFSP. Documentation of these services might
be included in the service coordinator's notes. Service coordinators in
several areas also stated that they would assist the family by providing
information about respite or other services the family wanted, but it
was not a part of their job to help the family obtain these "other
services". One service coordinator told OSEP, "Families must locate
their own services." Families interviewed by OSEP across the State
identified a variety of needs about which they would have liked
information, assistance in obtaining, or the location of resources to
help their child and family.

Parents stated that although they may have informed their service
coordinator of a need, the service coordinator did not assist them in
obtaining services and the resources to meet the family's need. Parents
further stated that family supports and needs were not discussed with
them. One parent stated that she "desperately needed counseling services
due to all the family pressures of having a child with lots of medical
issues." When asked if she had told her service coordinator of this
need, she said that she had not, she did not think that was part of the
service coordinators' job. Parents stated their service coordinator
asked if they needed anything, but parents did not know which resources
are available to be able to ask for them; their service coordinator did
not provide this information.

One need expressed by families throughout the State was that families
wanted to be connected to other families of young children with
disabilities. Families in most areas of the State also told OSEP that
their service coordinator did not offer to help them connect with
another family, nor did their service coordinator help them locate other
families even if they requested assistance. On this issue, service
coordinators stated that they provide families with a parent-to-parent
handbook which contains information about connecting with other parents,
but parents told OSEP that when they tried to call the telephone numbers
in the booklet, the numbers were no longer in service, it was long
distance, or the parents listed in the booklet were no longer willing to
talk to other parents. One parent described it as "useless for
connecting with parents, but that there were some other useful numbers
in the book." During one of OSEP's interviews with families, the
families exchanged telephone numbers with each other.

Service providers stated that some of the family needs are captured
under the "community resources section of the IFSP, but family outcomes
are not addressed on the IFSP," and, for the most part services to meet
family needs are not on the IFSP. When asked about family outcomes,
service coordinators stated that they put outcomes that the families say
they want, but they are usually outcomes for the child, not the family.
Most service coordinators told OSEP that family outcomes were not on the
IFSP in the same manner as child outcomes. Service coordinators in one
region said they write child focused outcomes, but are working towards
putting family focused outcomes on the IFSP.

Early intervention records reviewed by OSEP revealed little information
on activities to meet the needs of families to enhance the development
of their child. Some service coordinator notes had numerous entries
concerning the assistance in obtaining support and services for
families; other early intervention records contained almost no
information regarding family services. None of the IFSPs reviewed had
outcomes directly related to the needs of the family, although families
identified a variety of needs to OSEP. The IFSPs did contain some other
resources families may be receiving under a small box on the IFSP
labeled "Community Resources," but it was difficult for OSEP to
ascertain the use of that section as it frequently contained notation
about travel reimbursement for service providers, names of doctors or
that the Parent to Parent Handbook had been provided.

# V: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

Congress included provisions to assure that preschool or other
appropriate services would be provided to eligible children leaving
early intervention at age three. Transition is a multifaceted process to
prepare the child and the child's family to leave early intervention
services. Congress recognized the importance of coordination and
cooperation between the educational agency and the early intervention
system by requiring that a specific set of activities occur as part of a
transition plan. Transition activities typically include: (1)
identification of steps to be taken to prepare the child for changes in
service delivery and to help the child adjust to a new setting, (2)
preparation of the family (i.e., discussions, training, visitations),
and (3) determination of other programs and services for which a child
might be eligible. Transition planning for children who may be eligible
for Part B preschool services must include scheduling a meeting, with
approval of the family among the lead agency, the educational agency and
the family, at least 90 days (with parental permission up to six months)
prior to the child's third birthday. Transition of children who are not
eligible for special education also includes convening a meeting to
assist families in obtaining other appropriate community-based services.
For all Part C children, States must review the child's program options
for the period from the child's third birthday through the remainder of
the school year and must establish a transition plan.

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

The State's Part C self-assessment of transition identified a variety of
strengths. Several of the strengths included, the following: (1) joint
training is provided to parents and service providers on transition, (2)
joint policies designate timelines for information sharing and
transition planning between Parts B and C, (3) local interagency
agreements address transition; and, (4) counties are required to
evaluate family-centered practices related to transition. The Steering
Committee identified the following concerns related to transition: (1)
parents not participating in joint trainings, (2) some counties did not
convene a conference at least 90 days prior to transition, (3) in some
counties, steps to support transition were not included on the IFSP;
and, (4) 97 percent of the children for whom eligibility was not
determined in a timely manner are in one large urban area, and therefore
do not receive Part B services on their 3^rd^ birthday.

During the public input meetings, the following areas of concern were
identified: (1) transition activities occurred, but services did not
begin for the child in a timely manner; (2) transition guidelines not
available, and (3) transition conferences were not held in some areas of
the State.

Based on the information collected during validation planning, the
following areas were identified by OSEP for further data collection: (1)
timeliness of transition planning, (2) inclusion of transition steps on
the IFSP, and (3) the timeliness of the transition conference.

To investigate these issues, OSEP collected data from local programs,
parents, service providers, service coordinators, local programs,
interagency collaborators and from central office staff personnel. OSEP
reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following strength and
area of noncompliance.

## A. STRENGTH

**[Promising Transition Activity]{.underline}**

Three regions of the State, with assistance from the statewide Early
Intervention Technical Assistance System (EITA) and regional State
staff, have implemented transition activities that are praised by both
parents and programs. OSEP heard from families, service coordinators,
administrators and transition staff from the Intermediate Units that
transition activities were working well with good communication between
the Part B and Part C staff. In Lawrence County, (part of a three county
region) transition-planning activities begin as soon as the child is
identified as eligible for the Part C program. Demographic information
is sent to the Part B program, and information is updated every 6 months
to ensure accuracy of the list. The transition planning activities occur
well before the child's third birthday and include general informational
meetings to explain the Part B program and how transition will be
accomplished. Visits to programs are also arranged prior to the required
transition conference with the family, early intervention program and
the receiving Part B program. Families are notified by mail from the
Part B program and in person by their service coordinator of these
transition activities. The transition conference, scheduled at least 90
days before the child's third birthday, is attended by providers from
Part B, service providers and the service coordinator from the early
intervention program, the parent and whoever else the parent would like
to attend. Information is exchanged about levels of performance of the
child, any recent assessments and the current IFSP. Decisions are made
concerning any needed additional evaluations and who will provide them.
Parents, service coordinators, administrators from both programs liked
the system. Examination of materials provided to OSEP indicated a well
thought out plan that ensured transition activities would occur in a
timely manner and families would be afforded several opportunities to
learn about the Part B system for their child. Many of these same
activities occur in Butler and Mercer Counties, as well as Lawrence
County. All three are part of a tri-county system served by the same
Part B program. Allegheny and Dauphin county also have developed very
good transition activities through the cooperation and collaboration of
staff from both Part B and Part C programs and with the assistance of
the State's Early Intervention Technical Assistance System. Information
about these best practices is disseminated throughout the State by the
Technical Assistance System and by the regional State staff.

## B. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**[Transitions Steps Not Included on the IFSP]{.underline}**

Each IFSP must include the steps to be taken to support the transition
of the child to preschool services under Part B to the extent that those
services are appropriate, or other services that may be available, if
appropriate. The steps required include discussions with, and training
of parents regarding future placements and other matters related to the
child's transition, procedures to prepare the child for changes in
service delivery, including steps to help the child adjust to and
function in, a new setting. 34 CFR §303.344(h).

DPW has not ensured that the steps to prepare the child and the parent
for transition to Part B services, or other services as appropriate, are
included on the IFSP.

Service coordinators, parents and administrators across the State told
OSEP that the steps to prepare the child and the parent for transition
are not included on the IFSP. All of the IFSPs reviewed by OSEP did not
contain specific steps to assist the child in transition. Some IFSPs
contained information about scheduling a meeting with the school
district and requesting parent permission to provide the school district
with child information; however, the information was vague, usually had
no specific time frame or indicated how this activity would be
accomplished. Other IFSPs stated that options would be discussed with
the family, but types of options or specifics about the activity were
not included; therefore, it could not be determined if the activities
would prepare the parent for the transition.

Parents informed OSEP that transition was difficult for their child and,
when asked, could not identify any activities initiated by the early
intervention program specifically to assist their child to ensure a
smooth transition for the child. Service coordinators stated that they
wrote steps for transition, but they were usually documented in the
service coordinators' notes. Although service coordinators stated they
documented transition steps in their notes, OSEP found little more than
notes of attempts to set up a meeting or that transition would be
discussed with the family; there were no specific steps or other
details.

Although OSEP noted a promising practice in transition in three regions
of the State (see above) even in these regions, individualized steps to
be taken to support the transition of the child and family were not
included on the IFSP. Further, OSEP could not identify any specific
evidence that the transition activities were individualized to meet
specific needs of the child and family.

# VI. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT

A purpose of the IDEA Amendments of 1997 is to expand and promote
opportunities for parents and school personnel to work in new
partnerships at the State and local levels. Parents must now have an
opportunity to participate in meetings with respect to the
identification, evaluation, and educational placement of their child,
and the provision of a free appropriate public education to their child.
Parental involvement has long been recognized as an important indicator
of a school's success and parent involvement has positive effects on
children's attitudes and social behavior. Partnerships positively impact
achievement, improve parents' attitudes toward the school, and benefit
school personnel as well.

**Validation Planning and Data Collection**

**[Monitoring]{.underline}:** OSEP's 1994 monitoring resulted in a
finding of noncompliance related to the provision of prior written
notice to parents. Pennsylvania did not provide prior written notice in
each of the required circumstances described in then §300.504(a) (now
§300.503(a)).

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** The Pennsylvania Self-Assessment
Report addressed all cluster areas for Part B and Part C. The section on
Parent Involvement indicated a significant amount of training for
parents from 1996-1999. Annual figures indicate an increase in the
number of parents participating in training from 1,613 in 1996-1997 to
4,608 in 1998-1999. The PDE maintains a Statewide system for training
and information dissemination, the Pennsylvania Training and Technical
Assistance Network (PATTAN), with centers in the Harrisburg, Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia areas. In addition, the 29 Intermediate Units provide
training to both participating school districts and parents.

Parental rights and responsibilities are available in multiple formats
through multiple sources. Informational materials are disseminated in
seven languages and are available through the Pennsylvania Training and
Technical Assistance Network.

The Self-Assessment indicated a need for joint training of parents and
special and regular educators. In addition, the Self-Assessment
indicated that efforts to improve the relationship between identified
parent needs and the provision of training do not reach all populations
and need to be more broad-based.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** One of the focus questions asked
during the public input meetings was: "How are parents involved in the
education of their children with disabilities?" Responses from parents
indicated that the schools encourage their attendance at meetings but
not as equal participants; they feel that they are out-numbered by
school personnel and, therefore, their voices are lost. Parents also
reported that they do not have a firm understanding of their rights and
responsibilities and that they are not fully informed of what services
and options might be available.

After discussing information obtained through previous monitoring, the
Self-Assessment, public input process, and other available data, OSEP
determined that additional data would be collected regarding whether:
(1) parents receive training; and (2) whether staff receive training
relative to parents' needs and involving parents in the special
education decision-making.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, related service
providers, students and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strength and suggested area for improved results for children and youth
with disabilities.

## A. STRENGTH

**Parent Training Opportunities**

The Pennsylvania Self-Assessment Report indicated that training
opportunities are offered to parents in multiple formats and languages.
Staff from many of the sites visited by OSEP reported the availability
of training opportunities for parents through the Intermediate Units,
Parent Training Offices within the district or through advocacy
organizations and community groups.

## B. SUGGESTED AREA FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**[Training for Staff in Meeting Parent Needs]{.underline}**

Personnel in seven of eight districts were unable to identify any
training provided to staff relative to meeting the needs of parents or
involving them in the special education decision-making process.
Parents, during the public input process, reported lack of available
training opportunities while staff reported a variety of opportunities
made available to parents. Parent involvement in training opportunities
could be improved if staff were provided with appropriate training
regarding the involvement of parents in decision-making activities.

# VII. PART B: FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

The provision of a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment is the foundation of IDEA. The provisions of the
statute and regulations (evaluation, IEP, parent and student
involvement, transition, participation in large-scale assessment,
eligibility and placement decisions, service provision, etc.) exist to
achieve this single purpose. It means that children with disabilities
receive educational services at no cost to their parents, and that the
services provided meet their unique learning needs. These services are
provided, to the maximum extent appropriate, with children who do not
have disabilities and, unless their IEP requires some other arrangement,
in the school they would attend if they did not have a disability. Any
removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational
environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is
such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary
aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

The IDEA '97 Committee Reports of the Senate Committee on Labor and
Human Resources and the House of Representatives Committee on Education
and the Workforce emphasized that too many students with disabilities
are failing courses and dropping out of school. Those Reports noted that
almost twice as many children with disabilities drop out as compared to
children without disabilities. They expressed a further concern about
the continued inappropriate placement of children from minority
backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency in special
education. The Committees stated their intention that "once a child has
been identified as being eligible for special education, the connection
between special education and related services and the child's
opportunity to experience and benefit from the general education
curriculum should be strengthened. The majority of children identified
as eligible for special education and related services are capable of
participating in the general education curriculum to varying degrees
with some adaptations and modifications. This provision is intended to
ensure that children's special education and related services are in
addition to and are affected by the general education curriculum, not
separate from it."

#### Validation Planning and Data Collection

**[Monitoring]{.underline}:** In 1994, OSEP reported that Pennsylvania
did not fully meet its responsibility to ensure that: (a) evaluations
and reevaluations are completed in accordance with Federal requirements
and are not delayed due to staff shortages; (b) extended school year
services are provided as needed to ensure a free appropriate public
education to children with disabilities; (c) all related services
(specifically, psychological counseling services) needed by children
with disabilities were provided (also found in OSEP's 1988 report, 1995
follow-up report, and 1999 follow-up report); (d) the IEP includes a
statement of the specific special education and related services to be
provided and the extent of participation in regular education (now the
extent to which children with disabilities will not participate with
their non-disabled peers); and (e) public agencies establish and
implement procedures that meet the requirements regarding the placement
of students in the least restrictive environment.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** The Pennsylvania Self-Assessment
Report indicated that some regions have indicated a lack of timely
evaluations and reevaluations related to shortages in personnel,
including shortages of school psychologists and special education
supervisors. In addition, the Statewide emergency certification data
collection system is not adequate to track and monitor the prevalence of
emergency certification. Urban school districts report difficulties in
recruiting and retaining special education teachers.

Cyclical monitoring data reported in the Self-Assessment indicated that
PDE is frequently finding high levels of noncompliance with caseload and
class size limitations for: speech and language, learning support and
emotional support classes.

The Self-Assessment Report indicated that there has been an increase in
the complaints regarding the provision of extended school year services.
Cyclical monitoring data demonstrates that 20 percent of districts
monitored were found in noncompliance regarding extended school year
services.

Cyclical monitoring data indicated that 25 percent of student records
were out of compliance regarding the presence of a functional behavioral
assessment in the comprehensive evaluation report when required. The
Report also stated that there are still many school teams that need
training and guided practice in the use of positive behavioral supports.

The Self-Assessment Report indicated a wide variation in use of a range
of placement options across the State. Cyclical monitoring data show
10-18 percent noncompliance regarding the use of a continuum of
alternative placements for school-age children with disabilities. There
is a disproportionate representation of children with disabilities in
some more restrictive placements, including the following: (a) the
percentage of children with disabilities served in public separate
facilities is almost double the national average; (b) the percentage of
children with disabilities in private residential facilities is four
times the national average; (c) the percentage in private separate
placements is double the national average; and (d) the percentage of
children with disabilities in the following disability categories
exceeds the national data for placement in more restrictive educational
placements: mental retardation, emotional disturbance, multiple
disabilities, physical disabilities, visual impairments, learning
disabilities, autism, deaf-blindness, and traumatic brain injury.

The Self-Assessment Report indicated that there still may be a need to
provide training and technical assistance to school districts and
parents related to the initial identification of needs and the range of
assistive technology, particularly for students with severe
disabilities. The Steering Committee reported that very few monitoring
data regarding children with disabilities, aged five years and younger,
were available to the Committee.

High school completion data are difficult to calculate from
Pennsylvania's current data collection system. They do not compare
directly with national data. Dropout data for students with disabilities
are difficult to interpret as there are multiple reasons for students
exiting the PennData system and some students who drop out may be
included in other categories. Pennsylvania does not collect Statewide
data on suspension and expulsion for students without disabilities;
therefore, no comparison with students with disabilities can be made.
Data are not available to determine whether eligible students who are
expelled receive special education and related services that ensure a
free appropriate public education and allow them to progress in the
general curriculum.

The Self-Assessment reported that many students with disabilities
participate in the Statewide assessments. No data were available to
compare performance with nondisabled peers. Guidelines for allowable
accommodations have been published and widely disseminated in
collaboration with the Bureau of Testing.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** The focus questions for the
public input meetings included: "How do students with disabilities
receive the special education and related services that they need?" "Do
schools and preschools ensure that students with disabilities,
regardless of placement, have access to the same curriculum as their
nondisabled peers?" and "How do students with disabilities participate
with nondisabled students?" Responses indicated that children are not
receiving the related services they need, specifically speech and
language services and psychological counseling services. Parents also
reported delays in obtaining assistive technology devices and services
that their children need.

Parents reported that placements are predetermined for both preschool
and school-age programs and available options are not considered or
discussed with them.

Parents reported that general education teachers do not want to accept
children with disabilities into their classrooms and that there is no
support for children with disabilities who are placed in general
education classrooms.

After discussing information obtained through the Self-Assessment,
public input process, and other available data, OSEP determined that
additional data would be collected regarding whether (1) a lack of
qualified evaluators and providers exists; (2) children with
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education, including,
when appropriate, functional behavior assessments, positive behavioral
interventions, and behavior management plans; (3) assistive technology
devices and services are provided, when appropriate, to children with
disabilities; (4) extended school year services are considered and, when
determined necessary, provided in accordance with an appropriate IEP;
(5) children with emotional disturbance receive appropriate services
(especially counseling) in the least restrictive environment; (6)
children with disabilities receive access to the general curriculum; and
(7) children with disabilities receive services in the least restrictive
environment.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, related service
providers, students and parents.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strengths, areas of noncompliance and suggestions for improved results
for children and youth with disabilities.

## A. STRENGTHS

**1. [State Training to Increase Participation of Children with
Disabilities in a Wide Variety of Nonacademic and Extracurricular
Activities]{.underline}**

PDE has provided significant levels of Statewide training regarding the
placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive
environment and the participation of children with disabilities,
including severe disabilities, in activities and educational programs
for children without disabilities. OSEP observed extraordinary efforts
to include children with disabilities in a wide variety of activities:

-   Personnel in six of eight districts reported *significant* efforts
    to include children with disabilities in nonacademic and
    extracurricular activities. A wide range of activities were
    reported, including: lunch, varsity athletics, cheerleading, band,
    volunteer clubs, field trips, homeroom, library, choir and student
    council. Some programs that involve community or other off-campus
    activities are coordinated to enable children with disabilities to
    participate in these activities.

-   The "Creature Feature" program in Schuylkill County is an exemplary
    program for students with emotional disturbance who would otherwise
    be at risk for residential placement. It captures and sustains their
    interest in attending school and improving their behavior and
    academics through the unique level of involvement of the students
    with reptiles. Students are responsible for building cages, feeding
    and caring for the variety of reptiles that are housed in their
    classroom, including breeding and marketing some of the rarer
    species. Students prepare and present a reptile show to groups who
    come into the school to participate as well as in a wide variety of
    community and other school locations, giving the students the
    opportunity to demonstrate their skills and interact, in a positive
    manner, with a variety of adults and other students. In addition,
    presenting their reptile show improves their self-esteem and
    self-confidence dramatically by providing a forum for public
    speaking opportunities.

**2. [Educational Institute at the Barber Center]{.underline}**

With the support of PDE, the Gertrude A. Barber Center, the MAWA[^2]
agency that provides preschool services for the participating districts
of Intermediate Unit 3, has established the [Educational
Institute]{.underline} with a mission to train and educate
professionals, paraprofessionals, the community and families of children
with disabilities regarding "best practices" in the field of
developmental disabilities. Several components address this broad-based
mission:

-   staff is required to take a minimum of 24 hours of training
    annually;

-   there is an annual needs assessment completed by staff members and
    families;

-   Parent Education support groups are offered based upon disability or
    age range. Childcare is provided to encourage families to
    participate in the activities and the groups are facilitated by
    parents of children with disabilities; and

-   there is a "sibsession" -- a support group for typical children to
    share their experiences of having a brother or sister with a
    disability.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

In each district, OSEP collected interview data from special education
teachers, regular education teachers, related services providers,
parents, students and administrators. We only report data below from any
individual district that is confirmed by multiple informants.

**1. [Placements based on other than individual student
needs]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.550(b) requires that children with disabilities, including
children in private or public institutions or other care facilities, are
educated with children who are nondisabled to the maximum extent
appropriate and that special classes, separate schooling or other
removal from the regular educational environment occurs only if the
nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular
classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be
achieved satisfactorily.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that children with disabilities are
excluded from the regular educational environment for reasons other than
the nature or severity of the disability.

Personnel in seven of eight districts reported that children with
disabilities would be placed in less restrictive environments if staff
were available for co-teaching, consultation, teacher support, student
support, etc. IEP teams are unable to consider some options because they
know they are not available. In one district, all of the regular
education teachers that OSEP interviewed agreed that more children with
disabilities could participate in their classrooms if there were
sufficient staff for co-teaching and consulting. An administrator in one
site reported that children in life skills support and autistic support
classes would be more likely to be placed in regular education
classrooms if class sizes were not already "maxed out."

Personnel in three districts reported that some regular education
teachers are more receptive than others to receiving children with
disabilities in their classrooms and implementing modifications and
accommodations identified in the students' IEPs. One teacher reported
that this meant they had to "shop around" for a teacher willing to
accept a child with a disability. This same teacher stated that lack of
aide support in regular education adversely affects placement in the
least restrictive environment. A high school teacher in this district
reported that behavior problems resulted in placements that are not in
the least restrictive environment. Both regular and special educators in
all three districts report that regular educators are often reluctant to
work with special education students because of existing class sizes,
lack of training and lack of supports to implement modifications and
accommodations.

Personnel in three of eight districts reported that supports for regular
education teachers to facilitate access to the general curriculum by
children with disabilities as required by §300.346(d) and §300.347(a)(3)
are not available or provided. Several teachers in one district reported
noting significant academic improvement when an aide is provided to
support children with disabilities in regular education settings;
however, there is only one aide to be shared among five special
educators and therefore many students are either in regular education
settings without teachers receiving sufficient support or they are
unable to participate in the regular education setting due to lack of
support. IEPs in these three districts, as well as other districts,
indicated that the only supports to regular educators consisted of
providing a copy of the IEP and did not indicate any consideration of
supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child to
advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals, to be involved
and progress in the general curriculum and to participate in
extracurricular and other nonacademic activities, and to be educated and
participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled
children in academic and nonacademic and extracurricular activities.

A special education director in another district reported that students
are either in a regular education classroom and working successfully
without supports or they are in a special education pull-out for
whatever subject is problematic. Students usually are placed in regular
education classrooms only when they can function successfully without
supports; otherwise, because no supports are available, they are placed
in a special education classroom. Some students may be placed in regular
education classrooms without supports; however, in these situations,
they are not successful and are soon pulled back into special education
classrooms.

**2. [Adequate Supply of Qualified Personnel to Provide a Free
Appropriate Public Education]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be
made available to all children with disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.381 requires that each State have procedures and activities that
the State will undertake to ensure an adequate supply of qualified
personnel, including special education and related services personnel
and leadership personnel, necessary to carry out the purposes of IDEA.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that the procedures and activities
that PDE has undertaken have not ensured that an adequate supply of
qualified special education and related services personnel are available
to ensure that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate
public education.

Personnel in five of eight districts report that caseloads/class sizes
impact the amounts or types of services available or offered to children
with disabilities and four of eight report that evaluations/
reevaluations may be delayed beyond State-established time lines due to
staff shortages -- that a choice is made between completing evaluations
within time lines or providing the amount of services specified by
students' IEPs. One related service provider reported that the new
provider she is mentoring has a caseload of 106 in the elementary and
high school combined. None of the 26 high school students had begun
receiving services set forth in their IEPs as of the end of October. A
teacher in another district reported that her caseload is too high to
consider options such as co-teaching and stated that "there are so many
kids in my room, I cannot service THEM with everything they need." In
still a third district, a regular education teacher reported that he has
54 students in one classroom (Pennsylvania has a regular class size
limit of 33 students per period per teacher) and over half of them are
special education students; yet he has no needed supports to assist him
in working with them. One related service provider reported that
sometimes she has to choose between evaluation or service provision due
to her caseload: "I can't possibly get all the evaluations done during
the forty minutes they give me during my planning time." Three related
service providers reported that due to travel time, they are not able to
provide all the direct services needed by the multiple districts in
which they work.

Personnel in four of eight districts reported that IEP services are
identified based on staff availability rather than student need.
Personnel in one district reported a delay in the beginning of related
services or early termination of services in order to complete
evaluations. Some personnel reported delaying the beginning of services
between two weeks and two months while others reported terminating
services between two months and two weeks before school ends in order to
complete files, paperwork and evaluations. One provider indicated a
waiting list due to a staff member leaving. Another district reported
shortages in speech pathology. In one location, a teacher reported that
some students need more occupational therapy and physical therapy than
they are getting but it is not included on the IEP or provided to the
children due to case load restrictions.

Personnel in two of eight districts reported that sometimes placement
has been largely dependent upon provider availability, caseloads and
class sizes, resulting in more restrictive placements than students
would otherwise require. For example, a teacher in one facility stated
that due to her large caseload, children with mild or moderate
disabilities were not provided with services specified by their IEPs.
Children with disabilities cannot be placed in regular education
settings in another location because regular education class sizes are
filled.

The majority of districts use an IEP form, which has an initiation date
and ending date for the IEP (the ending date constituting the duration
of the IEP). The IEPs contained another page where related services are
listed that includes columns for initiation, duration, frequency and
location, while specifying that initiation and duration need only be
completed if they are different from the beginning/ending dates of the
IEP. In no IEPs reviewed were the initiation/duration dates different
for related services; however, as mentioned above, one district reported
a delay in the beginning of related services or early termination of
services in order to complete evaluations. Some personnel reported
delaying the beginning of services between two weeks and two months
while others reported terminating services between two months and two
weeks before school ends in order to complete files, paperwork and
evaluations.

**3. [Availability and Provision of Extended School Year
Services]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be
made available to all children with disabilities. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.309(a)(3) states that a public agency may not limit extended school
year services to particular categories of children with disabilities or
unilaterally limit the type, amount or duration of those services. Also,
34 CFR §300.309(b)(1) requires that extended school year services be
provided in accordance with the child's IEP.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that PDE did not ensure that all
children with disabilities who require extended school year services as
part of a free appropriate public education are provided these services,
in accordance with an appropriate IEP.

Personnel in five of eight districts reported that extended school year
services are provided only to certain categories of students with
disabilities. A teacher and an administrator in one district stated
extended school year services are only provided to children with autism.
In another district, teachers stated that extended school year services
were only for children in life skills support classes, autistic support
classes and multiply-disabled support classes. Teachers and related
services providers in a third district stated that extended school year
services were for students with multiple disabilities only. A teacher
reported that she had several students with mental retardation who
required the service as part of a free appropriate public education, but
that it was not available to them. When asked about the section on the
IEP regarding extended school year services, the special education
director reported that page seven of the IEP states "IEP team has
considered and discussed with a determination made for every student."
The director says he has instructed the team member to write "yes"
because no one understood what it means and it therefore was
"meaningless." Two teachers report that they aren't sure what extended
school year services are and confused it with summer school programs.

Personnel in three of eight districts report that extended school year
services are not based on a current, approved IEP which identifies
specific goals or objectives to be covered, or services to be provided
through extended school year services. One special education director
reports that teachers pull extended school year goals and objectives off
the IEP and transfer them to the "Extended School Year IEP" which
parents sign -- but it is not done through an IEP team process. In 51 of
61 IEPs reviewed where extended school year services were identified as
appropriate, the IEP did not address the goals or objectives or services
that would be provided.

Personnel in three of eight districts report that eligibility for
extended school year services is determined through a computation of
regression/recoupment but that it is only computed over short breaks
such as Christmas or Thanksgiving and is not computed over long breaks,
such as summer. Personnel state that more students would qualify for
extended school year services if regression/recoupment was computed over
summer break, as there is more significant regression over summer.

Personnel in two of eight districts report that for all students
receiving extended school year services, the services are provided for
the same number of days and weeks, and that all students participate
during those times, regardless of individual student need.

**4. [Provision of Psychological Counseling Services]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.347(a)(3) requires that the IEP include a statement of the
specific special education and related services that will be provided to
the child to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; to
be involved and progress in the general curriculum and to participate in
extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and to be educated and
participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled
children. 34 CFR §§300.300 and 300.24(a) and (b)(9)(v) require that
public agencies provide psychological counseling services to children
with disabilities who need them to benefit from special education.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that PDE did not ensure that all
children with disabilities who require psychological counseling to
benefit from special education are provided with this service, in
accordance with an appropriate IEP.

Personnel in seven of eight districts reported that psychological
counseling services (including crisis intervention and behavior
management) are not considered a related service and are not included on
the child's IEP, regardless of individual student need. Personnel
reported that if children with disabilities need counseling services,
they are referred to a mental health facility/agency outside the school
district and that this service is billed to the parent's insurance
provider. In six of the seven districts, parents are expected to ensure
that the counseling is provided outside of school hours and to provide
transportation. In one of the seven districts, the high school is a
satellite program for the mental health agency and the counselors
provide services to the high school students during school hours and no
transportation is required. This same convenience is not available to
the middle and elementary children with disabilities in this district.

Counseling is not included on IEPs in any of the seven districts,
regardless of individual student need. Personnel in the eighth district
indicated that counseling may be put on IEPs as "counseling as needed"
or "counseling one time per week" and be provided in the form of crisis
intervention by the guidance counselors; however, if psychological
counseling is needed, where services from a qualified person other than
a guidance counselor are necessary, students are "referred out" as
described above. Therapeutic counseling is never included on IEPs. Some
personnel in this district reported that "referral out" counseling may
be included on the "linkages" page in the transition section of the IEP
but that this means the district has no responsibility to ensure that it
is done. A related service provider in this district reported that they
don't want to include anything on the IEP that they might not be able to
deliver and that psychological counseling services are not available
through the school; therefore, it is not included on IEPs, regardless of
individual student need.

**5. [Provision of Alternate Assessments]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.347(a)(5)(ii) requires that if the IEP team determines that
a child will not participate in a State or district-wide test of student
achievement (or part of an assessment), the IEP team must include a
statement of why the assessment is not appropriate for the child and how
the child will be assessed. 34 CFR §300.138(b) requires that PDE develop
guidelines for participation of children with disabilities in alternate
assessments when they cannot participate in State and district-wide
assessment programs, develops alternate assessments and, beginning not
later than July 1, 2000, conducts the alternate assessments.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that PDE did not ensure that all
children with disabilities who do not participate in all, or part of,
Pennsylvania's Statewide assessment of student achievement are assessed,
using an alternate assessment. PDE staff reported to OSEP that an
alternate assessment would be available by February or March of 2001;
however, unless districts reconvened IEP meetings for all currently
non-participating students, these students would not be able to
participate in this program. It is unlikely that, even if the alternate
assessment was available at this time, sufficient training of staff to
administer this test or implement guidelines identifying the students
who should participate in the alternate assessment could be provided in
time for students currently not participating in the State-wide
assessment program receive an alternate assessment during school year
2000-2001.

Personnel in six of eight districts reported that alternate assessments
are not provided to children with disabilities who do not participate in
all or part of the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment. In one
district, teacher observations and teacher assessments are utilized to
determine whether students are accomplishing IEP goals. While this
information cannot be scored and reported as an alternate assessment, it
is the method currently being used to assess children with disabilities.
The special education director in this district reports receiving no
information or guidelines from the State regarding alternate assessment.
An administrator in another district was unaware of the development of
any alternate assessment. Personnel in another district reported that if
students are not taking the Statewide assessment, some other test would
have to be given but they have received no information about what that
should/would be.

A building administrator in yet another district stated that they have
received no information or guidance regarding an alternate assessment.
Teachers in another district reported that they are looking around and
reviewing assessment instruments to use as alternate assessments. A
teacher reported that he is evaluating his students through
accomplishment of their IEP goals, as he is not sure what he is supposed
to be doing and there are no other assessments available to him.

One teacher reported that a student with emotional disturbance did not
take the writing portion of the Statewide test given this fall and no
alternate has been given even though the IEP states criterion-referenced
tests as his alternate. One related service provider in another district
indicated that a low-incidence assessment had been developed by the
district for students in life skills support classrooms and that
informal assessment is used for children in autistic support classrooms.
One teacher indicated that teacher assessments are used for children
with trainable mental retardation. A special education director in
another district stated that nothing is done consistently for students
who do not participate in the regular assessments -- there is no
guidance from the State. What is done varies widely from teacher to
teacher. The special education supervisor indicated that nothing is
needed except teacher-made tests.

In addition, in over half of the IEPs reviewed for students not
participating in all, or part of, the Statewide assessment program, no
form of alternate assessment was specified. In a very few cases where
the alternate assessment was addressed, it was indicated to be the
Brigance or assessment of achievement of IEP goals and objectives.

**6.** **[Categorical Exemptions from State-wide
Assessment]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.300(a)(3)(i) requires that services and placement needed by
each child with a disability to receive a free appropriate public
education must be based on the child's unique needs and not on the
child's disability. 34 CFR §300.347(a)(5) requires that State or
district-wide assessments of student achievement are addressed in the
child's IEP and that if a child will not participate in part, or all, of
an assessment, that the IEP include a statement of why the child will
not participate and how the child will be assessed.

As discussed below, OSEP found that PDE did not ensure that decisions
regarding participation in State or district-wide assessment are based
on the child's unique needs and not on the child's disability.

Personnel in three of eight districts reported that students in certain
categories of disabilities do not participate in Statewide assessments.
The special education director in one location reported that PDE has
developed an alternate assessment that would be available in February
2001 and would be used with children with trainable mental retardation,
children with multiple disabilities and children in life skills support
classes. Until that time, none of these children in that district could
be included in the State assessment program. Personnel in another
location reported that all students take the Statewide assessment except
students in life skills support and autistic support classes. In a third
location, personnel reported the students in life skills support classes
are automatically exempted from Statewide assessment while the
administrator reported that students in autistic support classes are
automatically exempted.

Personnel in a fourth location reported that students with low-incidence
disabilities are not expected to participate in Statewide assessment
programs. A teacher in this district stated that students with visual
impairments and physical impairments would be exempted because of their
category of disability.

The special education director in a fifth district reported that 95
percent of children are to participate in the Statewide assessment
program if you exclude students in life skills support classes, autistic
support classes and students with multiple disabilities. He stated:
"Almost 0% of these students take the test because they don't have the
cognitive ability to do it." One teacher of children in autistic support
classes stated that all of her students are exempted. The special
education supervisor reported that all students participate in the
Statewide assessment with modifications and accommodations except for
the children in autistic support classes who are exempted.

Personnel in a sixth district reported that students in multiple
disabilities support classes are exempted. A teacher in that district
reported that his low-functioning students are all exempted.

**7. [Identification of Types and Amounts of Services]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.347(a)(6) requires that the IEP identify the projected date
for the beginning of special education and related services,
supplementary aids and services, and program modifications that will be
provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, and supports for
school personnel that will be provided for the child. In addition, the
IEP must identify the anticipated frequency, location and duration of
those services and modifications.

As discussed below, OSEP determined that PDE did not ensure that IEPs
for children with disabilities identify the initiation, duration,
frequency and location of services and modifications provided to, or on
behalf of, children with disabilities.

The IEPs do not reflect these changes in beginning/ending dates of
related services. None of the IEPs reviewed contained
initiation/duration information (unless you assume it is the date the
IEP begins/ends) or frequency or location of any other supplementary
aids and services, program modifications or supports for school
personnel (i.e., the provision of personal aides, the provision of oral
testing, consultation with students or with their teachers, etc.). In
the majority of IEPs reviewed, frequency of even the listed related
services was not present. Teachers of preschool and school-age students
in two districts report that this allows them more flexibility in
scheduling and to adjust services as students require the service rather
than being "locked" into specific amounts and frequencies of service.

Location of service is not specified in any of the IEPs reviewed.
Related services did not specify group or individual (although some IEPs
included both as options) and special education services did not
identify whether the service was provided in the general education
setting or in resource room settings or segregated settings. IEPs
specify services as "full-time" or "part-time;" however, given the State
definitions of these terms, there is no mechanism to determine from
these designations how much or how often a child receives a service or
where the service is delivered.

## C. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**1. [Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior Management
Plans]{.underline}**

There are significant discrepancies within districts and across
districts regarding the implementation of functional behavioral
assessments. Personnel reported a variety of criteria for implementation
of this process, including: during reevaluation for a significant change
in placement related to behavior, when a new behavior is targeted, when
a pattern of behavior is identified or when an extreme behavior occurs.
Although personnel reported a variety of criteria for when to do a
functional behavior assessment, no one mentioned the requirement to
provide a functional behavioral assessment when a student has been
suspended more than ten days in a school year and no evidence existed to
demonstrate that one was, in fact, performed for these students. In one
instance, the question was specifically asked about a group of students
who had been suspended more than ten days and the special education
director was unaware of the length of the suspensions but knew that they
should have had a functional behavioral assessment at some point
although he wasn't certain when it should have occurred.

Review of existing behavior plans in IEPs indicated that they are often
identical from student to student; address very general behaviors, such
as "obey civil and school rules;" and contain positive reinforcements
and negative consequences that are not directly related to the
behaviors. In 24 of 47 IEPs containing behavioral intervention plans,
the intervention plans did not target the existing behaviors or were
general and the same from student to student. The use of individualized,
appropriate behavioral intervention plans, based on functional behavior
assessments, for children with behavioral concerns could significantly
increase opportunities for children with behavior concerns to
participate in general education environments and progress in the
general curriculum. Some examples of how behavior was addressed are
provided below.

1.  One student's comprehensive evaluation report indicates that he has
    a "lack of concentration in all academics, refusal to do assignments
    and he is easily frustrated....\[he\] constantly makes noise
    (singing, humming), hands in his pants several times per day." His
    behavior goals consisted of "to improve pro-social behavior weekly"
    and included the following objectives/benchmarks: "Goldstein's skill
    streaming," "to become more aware of positive options through
    internal locus of control," and "decrease physical aggression." None
    of these address the behaviors identified in the evaluation report.

2.  Another student's IEP indicated that the child is "very passive,"
    and that he "needs to become more socially involved proactively and
    take a more active role in his academics." There was one goal in the
    IEP related to behavior: "Improve social skills, weekly."
    Objectives/benchmarks included: "will improve prosocial
    interactions," "will improve positive responses when addressed in a
    social or academic setting," and "will initiate conversations
    through skillstreaming." Reinforcement was indicated as "positive
    reinforcement -- variable schedule" and "continuous reinforcement."
    Positive behavioral supports were not included nor was it clear from
    the objectives what behaviors were expected or solicited.

3.  A third student's comprehensive evaluation report indicates that the
    student "becomes physical when things do not go her way. \[The
    student\] can be nice at times but is mostly mean and nasty to
    others.... Needs include turn taking skills/sharing, cooperative
    play skills. \[The student\] has difficulty controlling her temper."
    Her IEP indicates that the student does not exhibit behaviors that
    impede his/her learning or that of others.

Personnel in four of eight districts reported that "appropriate"
behavior plans are not always included in IEPs when required. Personnel
in one location indicated that a functional behavioral assessment or a
behavior intervention plan is written after an IEP meeting during which
it is discussed and then sent home. It is not included in the IEP as
part of the IEP meeting. A teacher in one location indicated that there
is no behavior plan written even when the comprehensive evaluation
report indicates one is needed. Personnel reported that behavior plans
are not individualized and are not part of the IEP meeting -- they are
written afterward, attached to the IEP and a copy sent home to the
parent.

The appropriate use of functional behavior assessments and development
and use of individualized behavior intervention plans could result in
improved results for children with disabilities whose behavior impedes
their learning or that of others.

**2. [Assistive Technology Devices and Services]{.underline}**

Personnel in five of eight districts reported that needed training for
staff, parents and/or children with disabilities in the use of assistive
technology devices is not always provided or that devices and services
are not available as needed. A special education director stated that he
knows of six students who he believes are not getting the communication
devices they need because of uncertified speech language pathologists
who do not know enough about devices, determining which device a student
needs or how the devices work.

A related service provider in another district has been working for a
year with one student to get a needed device. She applied for a grant
which was denied so she had to find alternate means of funding; however,
once the device was obtained, she discovered they had to find funding
for a cart, software, cables, etc. so the student still does not have
the needed device. Another related service provider in the same district
stated that funding is a problem and can cause significant delays. A
second location reported that while devices may be provided, cables and
software are often lacking; therefore, students are unable to use the
devices. In a third location, the special education director stated that
the IEP will reflect that an evaluation will be provided to determine
the need for assistive technology devices or services. The evaluation is
usually completed within a week and a determination made; however, it
was apparent that while the determination is reflected in the IEP, it is
not done at an IEP meeting.

Teachers in one district reported that any assistive technology device
that is not readily available within the district is funded either
through Medicaid or the parents' insurance (when medically necessary) or
it is requested through the State. If the State denies it or delays
payment, or if the Medicaid is denied, the device cannot be purchased
until the next budget cycle (when it can be included in the overall
funding request of the district) and the student doesn't get the device.
Providers reported that they "try to make do" but that the bottom line
is that the student's devices or services are delayed or denied.

The appropriate provision of assistive technology devices and services
when needed by a child with a disability to achieve a free appropriate
public education could remove barriers to inclusion in Statewide
assessment programs, participation in nonacademic and extracurricular
activities and more participation in the general curriculum.

# VIII. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION

The National Longitudinal Transition Study reported that the rate of
competitive employment for youth with disabilities out of school for
three to five years was 57 percent, compared to an employment rate of 69
percent for youth in the general population. The Study identified
several factors that were associated with post-school success in
obtaining employment and earning higher wages for youth with
disabilities. These include completing high school, spending more time
in regular education, and taking vocational education in secondary
school. The Study also showed that post-school success is associated
with youth who had a transition plan in high school that specifies an
outcome, such as employment, as a goal. The secondary transition
requirements of IDEA focus on the active involvement of students in
transition planning, consideration of students' preferences and
interests by the IEP team, and the reflection, in the IEP, of a
coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process which
promotes movement from school to post-school activities. Through parent
and student involvement, along with the involvement of all agencies that
can provide transition services, student needs can be appropriately
identified and services provided that best meet those needs.

#### Validation Planning and Data Collection

**[Monitoring]{.underline}:** In 1994, OSEP made no findings of
noncompliance related to secondary transition.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** The Pennsylvania Self-Assessment
Report indicated that high school completion and dropout data are not
gathered on an ongoing basis. In addition, no data are collected on
whether students who leave school actually move on to post-school
activities such as employment or further education. During the last
monitoring cycle of 25 percent of school districts in Pennsylvania, 71
percent (of those 25 percent) were found to be in compliance with the
documentation of transition; however, no data is collected to determine
whether students' post-school outcomes are being achieved.

With regard to available linkages to transition providers outside the
school system, the Report commented that "it is often difficult to
access Superintendent's signatures, prioritized attention and engagement
to interagency agreements."

A review of the 1998-99 cyclical monitoring data stated that the
comprehensive evaluation report includes the students interests,
preferences, aptitudes for 72.6 percent of 870 cases reviewed and, based
on the review of the steering committee, it is uncertain whether the IEP
is based on current information about students' interests, preferences
or aptitudes.

The Report also stated that through a Model Transition Replication
Project, the Bureau of Special Education is in the process of
replicating model programs in 14 sites, including a specific focus on
decreasing the drop-out rates of all students.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** Two of the focus questions asked
during the public input meetings were: "Describe the transition planning
process for students with disabilities," and "Are students receiving the
services they need?" Responses in half of the 12 locations where public
meetings were held indicated that participants did not know what
transition requirements were and therefore were unable to participate in
the transition planning process. Participants in five locations reported
that transition is just a paper process with no programming to back it
up while four locations reported that it is the responsibility of
parents to be knowledgeable about transition in order to drive the
services needed for their children. Parents expressed concern about
limited opportunities available to their children, both during the
transition process and after completion of high school.

After discussing information obtained through the Self-Assessment,
public input process, and other available data, OSEP determined that
additional data would be collected regarding whether (1) agency linkages
are identified and established; (2) appropriate transition goals,
services and activities are addressed in IEPs; (3) opportunities for
community experiences are available; and (4) transition services
represent a coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented
process designed to promote movement from school to post-school
activities.

OSEP reviewed and analyzed the data and identified the following
strength and areas of noncompliance.

## A. STRENGTH

**[Philadelphia Secondary Transition Programs]{.underline}**

PDE has invested substantial financial and personnel resources in the
improvement of special education services, including secondary
transition services, in the 30 clusters of the Philadelphia School
District. The five clusters visited in Philadelphia demonstrated a high
degree of sophistication in the area of secondary transition.
Administrators are supportive and staff are knowledgeable and dedicated.
Students have a wide range of opportunities for community experiences,
on-site employment and pre-employment exploration, and considerable
informal agency involvement.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

In each district, OSEP collected interview data from special education
teachers, regular education teachers, related services providers,
parents, students and administrators. We only report data below from any
individual district that is confirmed by multiple informants.

**1. [Coordinated Set of Activities Within An Outcome-Oriented
Process]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.347(b)(1) states that the IEP must include, for each student
beginning at age 14 (or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP
team), and updated annually, a statement of the transition service needs
of the student that focuses on the student's courses of study. In
approximately half of IEPs reviewed (24 of 52) across all eight
districts, courses and activities related to an overall goal for
students beginning at age 14 were not included. Personnel in five of the
eight districts reported that transition service needs, addressed under
appropriate components of the IEP, related to a course of study, are not
identified for students at age 14.

34 CFR §300.347(b)(2) states that for each student beginning at age 16
(or younger, if determined appropriate by the IEP team), each IEP must
include a statement of needed transition services, including, if
appropriate, a statement of the interagency responsibilities or any
needed linkages. 34 CFR §300.29 states that transition services means a
coordinated set of activities for a student with a disability that is
designed within an outcome-oriented process that promotes movement from
school to post-school activities, including post-secondary education,
vocational training, integrated employment (including supported
employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent
living, or community participation. Transition services are based on
individual student's needs taking into account the student's preferences
and interests and includes instruction, related services, community
experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult
living objectives and if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills
and functional vocational evaluation.

OSEP found that PDE did not ensure that the IEPs of students include a
statement of needed transition services that addresses the student's
needs, interests, and abilities, and represents a coordinated set of
activities within an outcome-oriented process designed to facilitate a
student's transition from high school into an appropriate post-secondary
situation.

In 39 of 66 IEPs reviewed for students with disabilities beginning at
age 16, needed community experiences were not addressed. Personnel
responsible for these IEPs confirmed that community experiences were
needed but not addressed due to lack of availability. Personnel in four
of eight districts visited reported that children with disabilities are
not involved in community activities such as job shadowing or career
exploration or orientation. One of the districts indicated that some
students are not involved in community activities and that
higher-functioning students are seldom involved. One teacher in another
district reported not accessing community activities for his
higher-functioning students because there are few options available in
rural settings and the life skills support students need it more than
his students need it.

Based on records reviewed and interviews with teachers and
administrators, IEPs in all eight districts visited are not addressing
transition as a coordinated set of activities under a goal-oriented
approach. Beginning at age 14, IEPs contain a "transition plan" which
identifies activities to be undertaken by the school, student, parent,
school personnel and representatives of outside agencies. However, there
is no evidence in most IEPs reviewed, of goals, objectives or services
related to the achievement of the identified activities for students
aged 16 and older. In many cases, the activities did not relate to an
identified outcome or goal for the student. Personnel in three of eight
districts visited reported that transition services do not represent a
coordinated set of activities within an outcome-oriented process. There
was a clear lack of connection in all districts visited between the
content of the IEP and the actual services being provided to students,
as indicated by the examples below.

One 17-year-old severely-retarded student who, according to the IEP,
will require total adult supervision for life and who is not able
cognitively to benefit from academic instruction, has no goals in his
IEP related to employment nor does the IEP reflect any interests he
might have nor does it indicate a need for functional vocational
evaluation, career education, work-based learning or
vocational-technical education (all are checked "no"). The IEP states
that the employment outcome "will be evaluated during \_\_\_\_\_\_'s
junior year (2003)." While the IEP indicates that he will be "exposed to
community-based experiences throughout schooling," the IEP indicates
none that will be provided. Goals and objectives focus on increasing
upper extremity mobility and eye contact.

The IEP for a 19-year-old girl indicated that she is unsure of her
future goals and from that point, listed what her mother wants her to do
(supported employment and living at home). No indication of the child's
interests or preferences was evident in the IEP. Goals and objectives
addressed pre-vocational skills, basic math operations of addition,
subtraction, multiplication and division, and functional sight
vocabulary.

Another IEP indicated that a 17-year-old wants "to go to train for a
job." In addition, the student would like to "work in a McDonald's and
cook and clean." He plans to live with his mother. Goals and objectives
included adding and subtracting two/three-digit numbers with regrouping,
adding and subtracting fractions with the same denominators,
multiplication with a calculator, improving comprehension skills across
content areas, and improving handwriting skills. Nothing in the IEP
indicated preparation for getting a job, or learning to cook and clean.
No independent living skills were addressed.

Personnel in four of eight districts reported that needed linkages and
services are not always provided children with disabilities beginning at
age 16. Personnel in three of eight reported that responsibilities of
various agencies are not identified on IEPs. Personnel in one of the
three districts reported that all that appears on the IEPs is the
agency, the contact person at the agency and a phone number (this was
confirmed through review of the IEPs). Parents may make the contact or
someone at the IEP meeting may volunteer to make the contact but it is
not formal and is never included as a responsibility on the IEP. The
responsibilities of the various agencies or the school district are also
not documented on the IEP. Interview data indicate that most linkages
depend on the relationships among the school personnel and the
representatives of the agencies. If those relationships are not in place
(through turnover or disputes), services are not provided.

**2. [Inviting Representatives of Agencies Likely to be Responsible for
Providing or Paying for Transition Services]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.344(b)(3)(i) requires that, if a purpose of the meeting is
the consideration of needed transition services for a student, the
public agency shall invite a representative of any other agency that is
likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services. 34 CFR §300.344(b)(3)(ii) states that if an agency invited to
send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the public agency
shall take other steps to obtain the participation of the other agency
in the planning of any transition services.

As discussed below, OSEP found that PDE does not ensure that IEP
notification and invitation meet IDEA requirements regarding transition.

In 52 of 66 student files reviewed for students aged 16 and older, the
invitation provided to the parent did not reflect the inclusion of any
other agency that was likely to be responsible for providing or paying
for transition services. Even fewer of the IEPs reviewed reflected
participation of outside agency personnel and district personnel
reported that representatives were not invited until the students'
senior year, even when agencies existed who were likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for transition services as indicated
by the linkages listed in the IEP. Personnel in seven of eight districts
report that outside agencies are seldom invited to transition services
planning meetings. In one district, all connections with outside
agencies are the responsibility of the parents or students, according to
district personnel. In other districts, OSEP found a wide variety of
other methods used to obtain agency participation in transition services
planning; however, no evidence of agency participation or commitment was
documented in the IEPs.

# IX. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION

IDEA assigns responsibility to State education agencies for ensuring
that its requirements are met and that all educational programs for
children with disabilities, including all such programs administered by
any other State or local agency, are under the general supervision of
individuals in the State who are responsible for educational programs
for children with disabilities and that these programs meet the
educational standards of the State educational agency. State support and
involvement at the local level are critical to the successful
implementation of the provisions of IDEA. To carry out their
responsibilities, States provide dispute resolution mechanisms
(mediation, complaint resolution and due process), monitor the
implementation of State and Federal statutes and regulations, establish
standards for personnel development and certification as well as
educational programs, and provide technical assistance and training
across the State. Effective general supervision promotes positive
student outcomes by promoting appropriate educational services to
children with disabilities, ensuring the successful and timely
correction of identified deficiencies, and providing personnel who work
with children with disabilities the knowledge, skills and abilities
necessary to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

#### Validation Planning and Data Collection

**[Monitoring]{.underline}:** In 1994, OSEP reported that: (a)
Pennsylvania did not use effective methods of enforcing Part B
requirements in agencies under PDE's general supervisory authority; (b)
PDE's monitoring system was insufficient to ensure implementation of
requirements regarding children with disabilities in juvenile and adult
correctional facilities, parochial and other private schools, content of
IEPs, evaluation and identification of children with specific learning
disabilities, arranging IEP meetings at a mutually agreed upon time and
place; and (c) PDE did not ensure that complaints are investigated and
resolved within 60 days after receipt of the complaint.

PDE's Fiscal Year 2000 IDEA Part B grant award was released subject to
special conditions. Specifically, OSEP determined that PDE had not
ensured that its process for verifying the completion of local school
district corrective actions resulted in the effective correction of
identified noncompliance. For the 2000-20001 school year, PDE initiated
revised procedures for verifying the completion of corrective actions;
however at the time of OSEP's October 23, 2000 visit, these procedures
had not been in place long enough for OSEP to determine their
effectiveness. Therefore, OSEP conducted an on-site review on May 15 and
16, 2001, for the purpose of collected data relative to this issue. OSEP
visited four school district that had been monitored by PDE and for
which PDE had determined that all deficiencies had been corrected. OSEP
collected data regarding the same issues for which PDE had previously
found noncompliance, and concluded that deficiencies had in fact been
corrected.

**[Self-Assessment]{.underline}:** The Pennsylvania Self-Assessment
Report indicated that PDE has not corrected, in a timely manner,
systemic deficiencies identified through complaints, monitoring, and due
process hearings in certain districts, despite multiple founded
complaints on the same issues and repeated findings of violations. In
addition, data are not collected or analyzed regarding the frequency or
effectiveness of enforcement actions. Despite the creation of a Basic
Education Circular regarding enforcement actions, PDE did not maintain
historical data linking the application of enforcement techniques and
sanctions with the resolution of serious, documented, long-term
noncompliance.

PDE has revised its monitoring process so that the same person who
manages complaint resolution in a district also chairs the monitoring
team and manages the corrective action process. This helps ensure that
complaint data are utilized as part of the monitoring and
decision-making process. The Self-Assessment reported that preschool
monitoring data for the past three years are not in an automated data
system. This limits PDE's capability to access and analyze the results
of their monitoring efforts. In addition, there is a need to create
preschool performance goals and indicators.

The Self-Assessment indicated that data on due process and review
decisions are not accessible and usable to enable databased
decision-making.

The Self-Assessment reported that complaint investigation is now
completed within the 60-day time line.

According to the Self-Assessment, PDE has done a significant amount of
training and technical assistance as well as creating guidance documents
on a variety of IDEA-related topics; however, the effectiveness of
training may not be adequately measured and there has been limited past
participation of parents.

The Report indicates a lack of available data across many of OSEP's
cluster components. In many cases, where data exists, the Report
indicates that it is either not utilized in planning and decision-making
or is inaccurate.

**[Public Input Process]{.underline}:** One of the focus questions asked
during the public input meetings for Part B was: "To what extent does
the PDE ensure provision of appropriate services through cyclical
monitoring of school districts and early intervention programs?"
Responses indicated that there are no significant consequences for
noncompliance; filing a complaint is "fruitless" because districts are
not afraid of PDE. PDE is responsive but has no "teeth" and the child
suffers in the end when monitoring is not purposeful and there is no
feedback or sanctions imposed.

After discussing information obtained through the Self-Assessment,
public input process, and other available data, OSEP determined that
additional data would be collected regarding whether (1) monitoring
results in systemic changes and improvement in results for children with
disabilities; (2) enforcement actions are taken, when appropriate, and
whether such actions result in systemic changes; and (3) the State is
taking appropriate action to alleviate personnel shortages.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected information from the review of children's
records and State and local policies and procedures, and interviews of
State personnel, local program administrators, teachers, and parents and
found the following strengths, areas of noncompliance and suggested
areas for improvement.

## A. STRENGTHS

**1. [Restructuring of the Dispute Resolution Systems]{.underline}**

PDE has brought together its State-level systems for due process hearing
decision implementation management, complaint management and mediation
to more closely monitor implementation of decisions and corrective
actions. The intent is to create a system that is more responsive to
parents and ensures that decisions and corrective actions are
implemented in a timely manner. One individual serves as the liaison
between the hearing office and complaint management unit so that
information is provided to complaint advisors when hearing decisions are
not implemented and one individual, the Division Chief for Complaint
Resolution (either for the east side or west side of the State), becomes
responsible for ensuring that actions are completed in that region of
the State.

**2. [Technical Assistance and Commitment of Resources]{.underline}**

PDE has created a Statewide system of technical assistance, the
Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network, that provides
technical assistance, upon request, to districts and intermediate units.
PDE has made a significant investment in technical assistance efforts to
improve results for children with disabilities. Such a commitment of
manpower and resources was made specifically over the past three years
to the Harrisburg City School District and five clusters of the
Philadelphia School District (Olney, Washington, West Philadelphia,
Strawberry Mansion, and Roxborough) resulting in significant progress
and improvement in services to children with disabilities.

**3. [State-Wide Initiatives]{.underline}**

The PDE has undertaken, during the past year, a number of initiatives
intended to coordinate and improve State systems related to special
education services. Among these initiatives, OSEP found the following to
be the most promising in promoting systems change and improved results
for children with disabilities:

-   Development of State academic standards that apply to all students,
    including children with disabilities, and the measurement of those
    standards through the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment,
    although more work is needed to ensure that all children with
    disabilities participate;

-   Development of an alternate assessment for children with
    disabilities who do not participate in all, or part of, the
    Pennsylvania System of School Assessment that will be available to
    districts in the spring of 2001;

-   Convening an interagency workgroup, under a memorandum of
    understanding, that will set up seven regional training sessions for
    1,000 participants to assist them in working in interagency groups
    within their counties;

-   Development of a resource kit to assist charter schools in
    understanding their special education responsibilities;

-   Establishment of a records center for children with disabilities in
    corrections facilities; and

-   Development of a monitoring system that encompasses both compliance
    and results that will soon be piloted.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**1. [Charter School Policies and Procedures]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.220 requires that local education agencies have on file with
the State education agency the policies and procedures that are
consistent with State policies and procedures providing for the
education of children with disabilities.

OSEP found that while PDE considers charter schools to be local
education agencies, they do not have on file with PDE their policies and
procedures related to special education. OSEP confirmed the absence of
the policies and procedures through interviews at the State education
agency.

**2. [Requirement for Parent Consent to Transfer Records]{.underline}**

34 CFR §300.505(d) states that a State may establish parental consent
requirements for services and activities in addition to the parent
consent required by Federal law, if it ensures that each public agency
in the State establishes and implements effective procedures that a
parent's refusal to consent does not result in a failure to provide the
child with a free appropriate public education. 34 CFR §300.300(a)
requires that the State has in effect a policy that ensures that all
children with disabilities aged 3 through 21 residing in the State have
the right to a free, appropriate public education. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.125 requires that the State have in effect policies and procedures
to ensure that all children with disabilities who are in need of special
education and related services, are identified, located and evaluated.

As discussed below, OSEP found that PDE does not ensure that the
requirement for consent does not result in a failure to provide a child
with a free appropriate public education. OSEP found that the
requirement for consent may result in a failure to identify, locate and
evaluate some children with disabilities who are in need of special
education and related services.

Act 212 of the Pennsylvania Code covers early intervention services for
children from birth through the age of beginners. The Act requires that
records may be transferred to a school district when the child attains
the age of beginners (the age established by the school district for
entering first grade). If a child transfers from early intervention
services to a school district prior to the age of beginners, the Act
requires parental consent prior to transferring the records. The
agencies holding the records are
mutually-agreed-upon-written-arrangement agencies under contract to PDE
to provide preschool educational services under Part B of IDEA and are
therefore, educational agencies. There is no Federal requirement to
obtain parental consent when transferring records between educational
entities responsible for providing educational services to children.

Personnel in mutually-agreed-upon-written-agreement agencies visited by
OSEP indicated that when a parent refuses to provide consent, records --
and even the name of the child -- are withheld from the district and the
child enters kindergarten as a regular education student. Personnel
reported that when names are withheld, only when the district suspects
that the child may have a disability and institutes the procedures for
identification and evaluation does the child receive needed services.
During the period from the time the child enters school until he/she is
identified and receives an IEP, a free appropriate public education is
not provided.

## C. SUGGESTED AREAS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES

**1. [Inter-relationship of Due Process Hearings and Complaint
Resolutions]{.underline}**

As noted in OSEP's 1994 monitoring report, Pennsylvania had no method of
monitoring implementation of due process decisions and took no action to
ensure that due process decisions were implemented unless the parents
filed a complaint about the failure to implement the decision. In OSEP's
2000 monitoring review of due process hearing decisions and complaint
resolutions that occurred in close proximity and involved the same
parties, indicated that the issues were the same in 21 of 50 files
reviewed. It would appear that PDE has yet to effectively ensure that
due process hearing decisions are implemented. However, the
reorganization by PDE of dispute resolution mechanisms may serve to
alleviate this problem.

If, as part of PDE's reorganization of dispute resolution, it institutes
a mechanism to track the overlap between hearing determinations and
complaint resolution and ensure that decisions and corrective actions
are fully implemented in a timely manner to reduce the overlap, this
action could facilitate the resolution of issues and concerns for
children with disabilities across the Commonwealth. In addition, PDE
would have trend data that could facilitate the identification of
systemic problems as part of their monitoring data.

**2. [Due Process Hearing Time Lines]{.underline}**

A review of hearing decision files along with telephone and action logs
indicated that in a substantial number of instances, the hearing
decisions are not reached within 45 days after the receipt of a request.
Further examination of the available documentation indicated that
extensions sometimes occur because of an apparently unilateral decision
by the hearing officer and it is difficult to ascertain from the files
that extensions granted are at the request of one of the parties.

Interviews with staff from the Office of Dispute Resolution indicate
that other files that document the extensions may exist in the personal
files of the hearing officers but that, at this time, these files are
not available for review by the State. PDE has requested the hearing
officers to provide copies of their personal files so that it can
monitor compliance with the hearing time lines.

Additional collection of data from the hearing officers will allow PDE
to determine whether extensions are, in fact, unilateral or are
occurring at the request of either party. Completion of hearing
decisions within 45 days from the request of the hearing will be
facilitated if PDE identifies and remedies causes for unilateral
extensions.

[^1]: Consistent with 34 CFR §303.343(a)(1), "Each initial meeting and
    each annual meeting to evaluate the IFSP must include the following
    participants: (i) The parent or parents of the child. (ii) Other
    family members, as requested by the parent, if feasible to do so;
    (iii) An advocate or person outside of the family, if the parent
    requests that the person participate. (iv) The service coordinator
    who has been working with the family since the initial referral of
    the child for evaluation, or who has been designated by the public
    agency to be responsible for implementation of the IFSP. (v) A
    person or persons directly involved in conducting the evaluations
    and assessments in Sec. 303.322. (vi) As appropriate, persons who
    will be providing services to the child or family.

[^2]: Mutually agreed upon written agreement (MAWA) agencies are
    agencies that have contracted with PDE to provide early intervention
    services to children with disabilities from birth through age five.