JANUARY 6, 2003

Honorable Inez M. Tenenbaum

State Superintendent of Education

South Carolina Department of Education

1006 Rutledge Building

1429 Senate Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Commissioner C. Earl Hunter

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

Division of Children with Special Health Care Needs

1751 Calhoun Street

Columbia, SC 29201

Dear Superintendent Tenenbaum and Commissioner Hunter:

The U.S. Department of Education\'s Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in South Carolina during the week of February
11-15, 2002, 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 district resources on improved results for infants, toddlers,
youth and children with disabilities and their families through a
working partnership among OSEP, the South Carolina Department of
Education (SCDE), the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC), and parents and advocates in South
Carolina.

A critical aspect of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process is
collaboration between OSEP and the representatives from the SCDE and
SCDHEC Steering Committees. The Steering Committees assessed the
effectiveness of State systems in ensuring improved results for children
with disabilities and protection of individual rights. In addition, the
Steering Committees 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 Committees.

Enclosed you will find an Executive Summary of the Report, an
Introduction including background information, areas that require
corrective action because they represent noncompliance with the
requirements of the IDEA and an area that needs improvement. SCDHEC and
SCDE have indicated that this Report will be shared with members of the
Steering Committees, the State Interagency Coordinating Council and the
State Advisory Panel for IDEA.

As part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, the State
developed an Improvement Plan for Part C and Part B, based on the
Self-Assessment that the State submitted to OSEP. The State submitted
Part B's Improvement Plan to OSEP in October 2001 and

Part C's Improvement Plan in February 2002. For Part B, the State must:
(1) review the Improvement Plan; and (2) submit to OSEP, within 60 days
of the date of this Report, an amended Improvement Plan that includes
any revisions in strategies, benchmarks, timelines, and evidence of
change that are necessary to ensure that each of the findings of
noncompliance in this Report will be corrected within one year from the
date of OSEP's approval of the revised Improvement Plan. It is important
that the State work with its Steering Committee in developing
improvement strategies that will ensure improved results for children
with disabilities and their families, and timely and effective
correction of the noncompliance. OSEP will work with SCDHEC, SCDE, and
the Steering Committees to the support the State's improvement efforts.

Regarding Part C, SCDHEC requested, by letter dated April 19, 2002, that
OSEP enter a compliance agreement with the State as a way to resolve
Part C noncompliance issues. The procedures for entering a compliance
agreement are in the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 USC
1234f, a copy of which is attached to this letter. In accordance with
those provisions, OSEP will schedule a hearing in your State, to which
affected families of infants and toddlers with disabilities, and other
interested parties, are invited. At the hearing, SCDHEC has the burden
of demonstrating to this Department that full compliance is not feasible
until a future date, which cannot exceed three years. My staff will be
contacting SCDHEC to schedule a convenient location and date for the
hearing.

Thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your staff
during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Ms. Susan DuRant
and Mr. David Steele 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 Committees to better
understand the State\'s systems for implementing the IDEA. OSEP would
also like to recognize the efforts that have taken place in South
Carolina to improve results for children with disabilities and the
strong commitment of State staff to continue these efforts. State staff
and the Steering Committees made an extraordinary effort to coordinate
the public input process and develop the Self-Assessment Reports. As a
result of their efforts, OSEP obtained information from a large number
of parents (including underrepresented groups), advocates, service
providers, school and agency personnel, agency administrators, and
special education administrators.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities in
South Carolina. 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. 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,
>
> Stephanie S. Lee
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education
>
> Programs

Enclosures

cc: Ms. Susan DuRant

Mr. David Steele

**[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY]{.underline}**

**[South Carolina 2002]{.underline}**

The attached report contains the results of three (Public Input,
Self-Assessment and Data Collection) of the six phases in the Office of
Special Education Program's (OSEP) Continuous Improvement Monitoring
Process (CIMP) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Parts B and C. The CIMP process is designed to focus resources
on improving results for infants, toddlers, youth and children with
disabilities and their families through enhanced partnerships between
the State agencies, OSEP, parents, and advocates. During the
Self-Assessment phase, the State appointed and worked with the Steering
Committees, composed of key stakeholders representing diverse
perspectives, to develop and implement the Self-Assessment Report that
analyzed how successful the State had been in achieving compliance and
improving results for children with disabilities and their families.
OSEP determined a level of involvement with the State of South Carolina
after reviewing the Part C and Part B Self-Assessment Reports the State
submitted to OSEP in June 2001. Based upon the Self-Assessment Reports
and further data collection, the State's Steering Committees developed
Improvement Plans that addressed both compliance and improving results
for children with disabilities, and included timelines, benchmarks, and
evidence of change. The Improvement Plan for Part B was received in
October 2001, and the Part C Improvement Plan was received in February
2002.

After reviewing the Self-Assessment Reports and Improvement Plans, OSEP
determined that data collection for Part B (services for children aged 3
through 21) should focus on two major areas: Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment, and General Supervision.
For Part C (services for children aged birth through 2) requirements,
data collection focused on four major areas: Child Find and Public
Awareness, Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments, Early
Childhood Transition, and General Supervision. Data Collection was
conducted on site in the State of South Carolina during the week of
February 11-15, 2002 and included interviews with parents, agency
administrators, district programs and school administrators, service
providers, regular and special education teachers and service
coordinators, and reviews of children's records. Data obtained from the
above sources was shared in a meeting attended by the South Carolina
Department of Education, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, members of the State Interagency Coordinating
Council and members of the Part C Steering Committee.

This report includes a detailed description of the process utilized to
collect data, strengths, areas of noncompliance with IDEA, and
suggestions for improved results for infants, toddlers, children, and
youth with disabilities and their families. OSEP recognizes the
Self-Assessment Committees' commitment to Part C eligible infants,
toddlers and their families, and Part B children and youth with
disabilities in the State.

**[Early Intervention Services for Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities:]{.underline}**

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

**[Areas of Noncompliance]{.underline}**

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   SCDHEC has failed to employ proper methods of administering the Part
    C program, including monitoring agencies, institutions and
    organizations used by the State to provide Part C services,
    enforcing obligations and provide training and technical assistance.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   SCDHEC does not ensure that there is a coordinated Child Find system
    and that public awareness materials are made available to the
    public.

-   SCDHEC does not ensure that all infants and toddlers are evaluated
    in all five developmental areas in the required time frame.

-   SCDHEC does not ensure the availability of a family-directed
    identification of the needs of each child's family to appropriately
    assist in the development of the child.

-   SCDHEC does not ensure 1) that all Individualized Family Service
    Plans are developed with required content, and 2) the provision of
    needed services in a timely manner.

-   SCDHEC does not ensure that the local education agency is notified
    of children who are approaching the age for transition, holding a
    transition meeting and ensuring that a transition plan is developed
    and implemented in accordance with the requirements of Part C.

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

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

**[Areas of Noncompliance]{.underline}**

OSEP observed the following areas of noncompliance:

-   SCDE does not ensure that psychological counseling is considered as
    part of a Free Appropriate Public Education and is included when
    appropriate in the Individualized Education Plan.

-   SCDE has not made a free appropriate public education available to
    children eligible for special education and related services by
    their third birthday.

-   SCDE does not ensure that appropriate personnel determine needed
    services and settings for children with disabilities who are
    suspended or expelled.

-   SCDE's monitoring system is not effective in identifying and
    correcting noncompliance with all Part B requirements.

-   SCDE does not ensure that all Part B complaints are resolved
    consistent with Part B requirements.

-   SCDE does not ensure that due process hearing and review decisions
    are conducted in a manner that is consistent with Federal
    requirements.

**[SOUTH CAROLINA MONITORING REPORT]{.underline}**

**[TABLE OF CONTENTS]{.underline}**

INTRODUCTION [2](#introduction)

I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION [2](#i.-part-c-general-supervision)

AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [2](#area-of-noncompliance)

II\. CHILD FIND AND PUBLIC AWARENESS
[2](#ii.-child-find-and-public-awareness)

AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [2](#areas-of-noncompliance)

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

AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [2](#areas-of-noncompliance-1)

IV\. PART C: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION
[2](#iv.-part-c-early-childhood-transition)

AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [2](#area-of-noncompliance-1)

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

A. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE [2](#a.-areas-of-noncompliance)

B. AREAS OF CONCERN [2](#areas-of-concern)

VI\. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION [2](#vi.-part-b-general-supervision)

AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE [2](#area-of-noncompliance-2)

# INTRODUCTION

## 

A.  **Administrative Structures and Children Served**

> ***Part C***

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC) is the lead agency for the implementation of Part C and is
responsible for ensuring Part C services are provided through the
BabyNet program. There are 13 BabyNet offices across the State. Each
BabyNet office is located in one of the 13 SCDHEC Health Districts, each
serving a multi-county area.

Infants and toddlers in South Carolina are determined eligible if they
have a developmental delay in one or more of five developmental areas,
including cognition, communication, physical (including vision and
hearing and mobility), social or emotional development, and self-help
skills (e.g., feeding or dressing) which is at least two standard
deviations below the mean on an appropriate standardized test, or the
developmental level is 30% below chronological age in at least one area
of development. Infants and toddlers are also eligible if they have an
established condition, such as a chromosomal syndrome, a severe
attachment disorder or low birth weight of 1000 grams or less, that has
a high probability of resulting in developmental delay. South Carolina
provided early intervention services to 2,576 infant and toddlers during
the year 2000, which was 1.44% of the total population

In addition to SCDHEC, there are five State agencies that receive annual
appropriations of Federal and State Part C funds to provide Part C
services. The SCDHEC has interagency agreements with each of the
agencies listed below:

1.  South Carolina Department of Disabilities and Special Needs, which
    provides special instruction and service coordination to BabyNet
    eligible children;

2.  South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind, which provides special
    instruction and service coordination to BabyNet eligible children
    with sensory impairments;

3.  South Carolina Department of Social Services, which provides child
    find for children entering the foster care system, primarily in the
    city of Columbia in the Palmetto Health District. This department
    also provides transportation services to BabyNet eligible children;

4.  South Carolina Commission for the Blind, which provides special
    instruction and service coordination to BabyNet eligible children
    who are blind; and

5.  South Carolina Department of Mental Health, which provides infant
    mental health services to BabyNet eligible children.

BabyNet Coordinators act as lead service coordinators when a referral is
received. The Coordinators conduct an initial intake visit with families
and remain the service coordinator until the evaluation and assessment
process is completed. The BabyNet service coordinator refers children to
local Department of Disabilities and Special Needs agencies for special
instruction and service coordination based on parental choice. If the
parents do not choose this option, the BabyNet lead service coordinator
continues to provide service coordination and refers to private
providers for completion of the evaluation and assessment and direct
service(s).

Historically, South Carolina has had a low rate of referrals for
children from birth to one year; particularly for minority and
under-identified populations[^1]. According to lead agency officials,
State law, enacted in July 2001, requires all hospitals in the State to
conduct newborn hearing screenings. SCDHEC informed OSEP that 90% of all
newborns will be screened during the first three months from the
infant's birth. Minority populations are largely under-represented in
the Part C program in South Carolina, especially in the Upper Savannah,
Trident, Appalachia III and Catawba Health Districts.

> ***Part B***

The South Carolina Department of Education (SCDE) is responsible for the
implementation of Part B of the IDEA. The State has 86 local school
districts with a total of 1,107 public schools. The State's total Part B
1999 child count for children with disabilities aged three through 21
was 20,551 students. Of that total 1,646 were children with disabilities
aged three through five and 18,905 children and youth with disabilities
aged six through 21. The State Superintendent of Education is
responsible for the general supervision of all educational services
provided by public agencies, including other State agencies, to
school-aged students in South Carolina.

The State Superintendent of Education has delegated responsibility for
general supervision of special education and related services to the
Division of Curriculum Services and Assessment, Office of Exceptional
Children. The Office of Exceptional Children consists of a director, 16
education officials, one general counsel attorney, one paralegal and six
support staff positions. The Office of Exceptional Children is
responsible for receiving, reviewing, and approving applications for
Part B local entitlement funds; monitoring local school districts,
private and State-operated education programs for students with
disabilities; operating the complaint management and due process system;
and providing technical assistance for personnel development.

The State's monitoring system consists of four activities: preliminary
monitoring, technical assistance agreements, official monitoring, and
corrective action. The on-site-monitoring activities include reviewing
student records, identifying areas of noncompliance, and developing and
enforcing corrective action agreements.

South Carolina has a two-tier system for due process hearings. Requests
for hearings are directed to the local school district and then
forwarded to SCDE. A hearing officer selected from a list maintained by
each local school district conducts due process hearings. The second
tier of the system is an administrative review by the State. A review
officer, assigned by SCDE, conducts the administrative review.

The Statewide assessment program provides test results to indicate where
each child is advancing at expected levels or may need remediation. The
Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests (PACT) comprise the Statewide
testing program designed to measure the achievement levels of South
Carolina students in grades three through eight. The PACT measures a
student's academic performance in the areas of mathematics,
reading/language arts, science, and social studies. The testing program
is correlated with grade-by-grade standards directly related to the
South Carolina curriculum standards. The standards specify what students
should know and be able to do as they progress through each grade in
school. The results provide teachers with specific feedback on areas of
their curriculum that may need strengthening. All students within the
tested grade levels are required to take the test. Students who
participate in the testing program are permitted to retake parts of the
tests until all parts are passed. Students with disabilities whose
individualized education program (IEP) indicates that they require an
alternate assessment are tested using the PACT-Alternate.

South Carolina expanded the testing program to include tenth graders in
the spring of 2001. Public high school students must pass reading,
writing, and math sections of the Exit Exam to qualify for a South
Carolina diploma. The tests are initially administered in grade 10, and
students who do not qualify have three additional opportunities to
retake the test in later grades.

**B. Self-Assessment Reports and Data Collection**

***Self-Assessment***

As a part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, SCDHEC and
SCDE appointed Steering Committees to examine Part C early intervention
services and Part B special education and related services to infants,
toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and develop a
Self-Assessment Report in partnership with the lead agency and the State
education agency. SCDHEC and SCDE submitted to OSEP, in June 2001,
copies of the State's Part C and Part B Self-Assessment Reports. The
Self-Assessment Reports for Part C and Part B were prepared separately
by the State.

The Self-Assessment Steering Committee for Part C included over 30
representatives from the multiple agencies that provide services to
infants and young children throughout the State, including members of
the State Interagency Coordinating Committee. The Institute for Families
in Society at the University of South Carolina was contracted to direct
the public input effort for Part C. Public input was obtained from focus
groups and key informant interviews, and focused on each of the OSEP
five cluster areas: General Supervision, Child Find and Public
Awareness, Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments, Family
Centered Services, and Transition. The resulting data was collected and
analyzed for each of the five cluster areas. The Self-Assessment
Committee continues its involvement in the Continuous Improvement
Monitoring Process, with a goal toward improvement planning. The
Self-Assessment Committee provided an update to OSEP in February 2002,
prior to the Data Collection visit, which presented data from the public
input process.

The Steering Committee's representation for Part B consisted of parents
of children with disabilities, local school district special education
directors and coordinators, special and regular education teachers and
administrators, higher education faculty, advocacy group
representatives, individuals with disabilities, SCDE staff, and
representatives of the general public. Steering Committee members served
on one of four Cluster Groups with each group addressing one of the four
OSEP cluster areas: Parent Involvement, Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment, Secondary Transition,
and General Supervision. A total of 12 public input meetings were held
in Greenville, Laurens, Columbia, Florence, and Beaufort. The State used
the questions developed by OSEP for each of the four cluster areas to
guide the discussion at the meetings. Staff from SCDE and the Mid-South
Regional Resource Center facilitated the public input meetings.
Following the public input meetings, the Steering Committee and Cluster
Groups met and reviewed the feedback to incorporate new information into
the final recommendations of the Self-Assessment Report. The Steering
Committee used public input comments to identify concerns that may not
have been addressed by the Steering Committee and Cluster Groups as well
as validate conclusions in the Self-Assessment Report and provide
guidance when the Steering Committee prioritized areas for improvement
planning.

***Data Collection***

Prior to the on-site monitoring visit, OSEP reviewed State information
in the areas most closely associated with positive results for children
with disabilities. For Part C, those areas were:

1\) Child Find and Public Awareness; 2) Early Intervention Services in
Natural Environments;

3\) Family Centered Services; 4) Early Childhood Transition; and 5)
General Supervision and Administration. For Part B, those areas were 1)
Parent Involvement; 2) Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least
Restrictive Environment; 3) Secondary Transition; and 4) General
Supervision and Administration. After OSEP's review of State data (i.e.
Self-Assessment Reports, State Improvement Plans, SCDHEC's Part C
Application, Annual Performance Report, citizen complaint database, and
due process hearing database), IFSPs, and the 1995 OSEP

Part B monitoring results for South Carolina, OSEP identified components
to examine during the monitoring visit. For Part C, OSEP examined
requirements in the areas of Child Find and Public Awareness, Early
Intervention Services in Natural Environments, Early Childhood
Transition, and General Supervision and Administration. For Part B, OSEP
examined requirements in the areas of Free Appropriate Public Education
in the Least Restrictive Environment and General Supervision and
Administration.

During the 2002 on-site visit, OSEP interviewed State and local
personnel involved in the provision of Part C and Part B services. For
Part C, OSEP interviewed early intervention service coordinators and
providers, interagency collaborators, service providers, program
administrators and parents in three Health Districts (Palmetto, Trident,
and Lower Savannah) and the State lead agency. For Part B, OSEP
interviewed parents and students, special and regular educators, related
services personnel, building administrators, special education directors
in five school districts (Richland I, Aiken, Saluda, Charlestown, and
Horry) and State education personnel. At the end of the week, OSEP
shared preliminary impressions with SCDE and SCDHEC.

OSEP will work to assist the State in implementing improvement
strategies designed to address the areas of noncompliance.

# I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION

The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
(SCDHEC), as the State lead agency for Part C, 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. The State is charged with
supervising and monitoring all agencies and individuals providing early
intervention services to ensure they meet the requirements of IDEA,
whether or not they receive funds under Part C.

While each State must meet its general supervision and administration
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 the vehicle 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.

**[Self-Assessment Report and Data Collection]{.underline}**

In the area of general supervision, the Self-Assessment Report
identified the following concerns: 1) the State does not have a formal
process in place to collect data on complaints and due process; 2)
budget constraints keep the SCDHEC from filling a full-time monitoring
position designed to monitor programs and providers at the local level;
and 3) quarterly monitoring reports are the only method to monitor local
contracted programs for the delivery of Part C services through the
BabyNet program on behalf of SCDHEC. Therefore, OSEP focused its data
collection activities on State monitoring of the Part C system and its
impact on the delivery of early intervention services particularly with
respect to current waiting lists for services in South Carolina. OSEP
reviewed State and local policies and procedures and interviewed State
lead agency officials, families, service coordinators and providers,
interagency collaborators and managers at the Health District level in
order to provide the State with additional data to inform their
oversight responsibilities and to assist the State in collecting
baseline data for improvement planning.

## AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**The State Lead Agency has Failed to Employ Proper Methods of
Administering the Part C Program, Including Monitoring State Level
Agencies, Institutions and Organizations used by the State to Provide
Part C Services, Enforcing Obligations, and Providing Training and
Technical Assistance**

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.501 require that each lead agency be
responsible for administering and supervising all programs and
activities that the State uses in the implementation of a Statewide
early intervention system, regardless of whether they receive Part C
funds. The State's administration and supervision is to include the
monitoring of programs and activities, enforcing obligations imposed
under Part C of IDEA, providing technical assistance, if necessary, and
correcting deficiencies identified through monitoring.

OSEP finds that the lead agency had not ensured effective general
supervision and administration including: 1) monitoring to ensure
compliance with Part C requirements; 2) enforcing obligations imposed by
Part C; and 3) providing technical assistance and training as needed.

1)  ***Monitoring to Ensure Compliance with Part C***

When OSEP asked the lead agency how the SCDHEC ensured compliance with
the requirements of Part C, SCDHEC officials stated that SCDHEC holds
quarterly meetings for the BabyNet Coordinators. During these meetings,
the lead agency discusses procedures and provides training. At the time
of OSEP's visit, SCDHEC had not identified any local noncompliance
issues as a result of the quarterly meetings. The SCDHEC also reported
that at the time of OSEP's visit, the lead agency required quarterly
reports from each BabyNet office for the purpose of collecting
enrollment and services data on children served by the BabyNet system.
After a review of the quarterly reports, OSEP determined that the
quarterly meetings and reports do not afford SCDHEC an effective method
for identifying and correcting noncompliance with the requirements under
Part C.

The lead agency is required to ensure that all programs and activities
used by the State to carry out Part C, whether or not they receive Part
C funds, are monitored. SCDHEC officials informed OSEP during the
on-site visit that they are not currently monitoring the School for Deaf
and Blind or the Department of Social Services to ensure compliance with
Federal Part C requirements because these agencies conduct their own
agency monitoring; nor is the lead agency coordinating with those other
agencies to ensure that the agencies' monitoring covers every Part C
requirement. OSEP discussed the monitoring procedures in place at the
School for the Deaf and Blind and the Department of Social Services with
administrators from those programs. The information obtained during the
interviews along with a review of these programs' monitoring procedures
confirmed that these activities are not sufficient to monitor for most
of the requirements of Part C. For example, OSEP found in its review
that the monitoring procedures used by the School for the Deaf and Blind
addressed only two Part C requirements: ensuring that all five areas of
development are assessed and when a need is identified, addressed on the
IFSP; and ensuring the confidentiality of client information.

OSEP's findings are consistent with the information in the State's
Self-Assessment and Improvement Plan. SCDHEC identified in the
Self-Assessment Report that monitoring to ensure general administration
and supervision of programs and activities for IDEA requirements under
Part C needs to be improved. SCDHEC also identified that it does not
have monitoring policies, procedures and staff necessary to ensure
compliance with Federal and State laws, regulations, policies and
procedures[^2]. As a part of its general supervision enhancement grant
awarded by OSEP in September 2001, the SCDHEC plans to develop a focused
monitoring system for implementation in September 2002.

2)  ***Enforcing Obligations under Part C***

During the on-site visit, OSEP was informed that private providers were
not implementing early intervention services consistent with Part C
requirements. Examples of services not being implemented in a manner
consistent with Part C requirements include: 1) services that are
provided to eligible infants and toddlers and their families are not
included on the IFSP;

2\) services not provided in the setting specified on the IFSP; and 3)
providers not "showing up" to provide services. Local administrators
also informed OSEP about a lack of supervision related to the provision
of early intervention services by private providers.

District II administrators report that private providers (therapists)
are unwilling to travel to provide services to children in rural areas,
and that providers do not "show up" to provide services in homes. A
District II administrator stated, "therapists do not communicate with us
and do not let the service coordinator know when they want to increase
services to the child." The District II administrators told OSEP that
they do not have the authority to resolve their concerns about private
providers not implementing services in an appropriate manner and they
are unable to get assistance to resolve the issues. Another District II
administrator stated, "therapists tell us they are their own boss and
they do not interact with early intervention." All District II
administrators concurred that private providers do not understand the
requirements of Part C and their obligation to follow the IFSP. The
District II administrators expressed confusion about the appropriate
entity to supervise private providers. The administrators stated that
the early intervention supervisors of the Department of Disabilities and
Special Needs Boards are responsible for compliance with Part C
requirements. However, one of the administrators reported making contact
recently with the lead agency to arrange for a discussion on these
issues.

State Interagency Coordinating Council members reported that services on
IFSPs are not always delivered in the settings indicated on the IFSP. In
addition, Council members stated that when therapists refuse to go into
homes to provide services, a delay or denial of services occurs. Lead
agency staff reported that some services, such as those provided by
Family Connections, are not included as part of the IFSP.

OSEP was informed by lead agency officials that the State does not use a
contractual mechanism or any other method to ensure accountability for
Part C with private providers who conduct both evaluation and assessment
functions and the delivery of direct services, such as occupational,
speech and physical therapy, to eligible children. Thus, SCDHEC, as the
lead agency for Part C, has not exercised its general supervisory
authority to ensure compliance with the requirements of Part C. SCDHEC's
failure to implement an effective method of supervision for private
providers that enables it to identify and correct deficiencies has
resulted in noncompliance across the State. Lead agency staff informed
OSEP during the visit that preparations were being made to initiate
contracts with local private providers that will assist the State in
identifying noncompliance practices and result in children and their
families receiving services that they need.

***3) Providing technical assistance and training***

All State-level interagency collaborators, State lead agency staff and
some Interagency Coordinating Council members reported that a need for
training and technical assistance exists in the State. District I
service providers, service coordinators, interagency collaborators
reported that they have not received any training on the
responsibilities and requirements under Part C. Service coordinators in
District I could not describe any training they had received and
District II coordinators reported they have not received any training
regarding parent rights. The BabyNet Coordinator in District I reported
that after 15 months in the position, (s)he had not received any
training around the job responsibilities. Service providers in this
district reported a need for a meeting with BabyNet officials to learn
about the early intervention system and billing procedures. Service
Providers in District II stated that they do not see themselves as part
of the early intervention system. The providers described one example of
not fully participating in the system by stating that they do not
receive a copy of the child's IFSP; a copy is not offered to them by the
service coordinator nor do they request one. District I service
providers also reported that they have not been given copies of IFSPs
and that often they do not always know what the content of the IFSP is
for a child and family that they are working with. The District I
service coordinators and providers stated a need for standardized rules
(i.e., guidelines) for implementing the BabyNet system. Administrators
in this same district reported that they do not find BabyNet training
effective or relevant. The administrators agreed that they have to "dig
their way through and figure things out for themselves." Administrators
in District II stated that the lead agency had informed them that they
would be in a "state of flux" for a period of time. The administrators
also informed OSEP that the lead agency has discontinued training for
providers and as a result infants and toddlers are not receiving
comprehensive evaluations and assessments within required timelines;
families' concerns, priorities and resources are not being addressed;
and IFSPs are not identifying or addressing children's' and families'
needs (See Section II and Section III of this Report). They further
stated that the lead agency has developed a training curriculum that
will be implemented in the future. Administrators in District III
reported that they provide training to their staff through in-house
resources.

OSEP finds that SCDHEC has not: implemented a monitoring system that is
effective in identifying noncompliance with Part C requirements
including the monitoring of agencies, institutions and organizations
used by the State to carry out Part C; enforced all the obligations
imposed under Part C of IDEA; and adopted and used proper methods of
administering each program, including providing technical assistance and
training.

# II. CHILD FIND AND 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 for 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 H in 1986, now Part C, Congress sought to
ensure 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, American
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 because
development occurs at a more rapid rate during the first three years of
life than at any other age. Research in early brain development 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 are
critical.

**[Self-Assessment Report and Data Collection]{.underline}**

As a strength in the area of Child Find, the Self-Assessment Report
identified that newborn hearing screening was conducted on nearly 99% of
all infants in the State. The following concerns were identified: 1) low
number of referrals for children under age one, and rates of referrals
increasing over time for Caucasian children and decreasing for minority
children; 2) strong emphasis on a medical model that fosters the
identification of infants and toddlers through routine developmental
screenings; 3) lack of training to inform referring and collaborating
agencies about early intervention services; 4) high service coordinator
caseloads; and 5) noncompliance with requirements that address
evaluation, assessment, and IFSP development.

######## 

## AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1.  **SCDHEC does not Ensure that there is a Coordinated Child Find
    System and that Public Awareness Materials are made Available to the
    Public**

Part C regulations require that the lead agency ensure that the Child
Find system under this part is coordinated with all other major efforts
to locate and identify children conducted by other State agencies
responsible for administering the various education, health, and social
services programs relevant to this part. Further, the Child Find system
must include procedures for use by primary referral sources for
referring a child to the appropriate public agency within the system
for: 1) evaluation and assessment, in accordance with §§303.322 and
303.323; or 2) as appropriate, the provision of services, in accordance
with §303.342(a) or §303.345. (34 CFR §303.321(c),(d))

SCDHEC staff reported that Child Find activities have not been
coordinated for minority and underrepresented populations. State
Interagency Coordinating Council members confirmed that the Child Find
efforts "focus on process" but there is no Child Find "system". The
Council members stated that the State has problems with identification
of minorities and is not reaching the lower socio-economic populations.
In District I, an interagency collaborator reported that families with
young children who are enrolled in Social Security Insurance programs
are not referred to the BabyNet system, demonstrating a lack of
coordination between agencies. In District II, the program
administrators agreed that community agencies have limited knowledge of
Baby Net and that the lack of coordination around Child Find and Public
Awareness is an issue. The service coordinators in this District
reported that child care centers do not know about Baby Net. The service
coordinators also stated that even though Migrant Head Start knows about
Baby Net and makes referrals, many migrant workers on John's Island did
not know about services available through the program.

In all sites visited, OSEP heard that public awareness activities,
including distributing materials to parents, have not been effective in
informing the public about services available through the early
intervention system. The State's technical assistance provider reported
a lack of clear expectations regarding public awareness and the need to
work on culturally appropriate outreach, especially with the Native
American population in the Catawba Nation and the Medicaid population.
In District I, the service providers stated that they did not see any
brochures or information in the community, especially in rural areas.
The service providers and coordinators in this District agreed that
low-income families are not being identified and receiving services. A
service provider in this District pointed out that Hispanic families are
isolated. The District I administrators stated that all local ethnic
groups, i.e., African Americans, Hispanics and Caucasians, are
underrepresented in the system. Service providers in this District
stated that in the rural areas, African Americans and Hispanics are not
being identified early. The service coordinators in this District
reported that families in rural communities do not want to be referred
because of the stigma of mental retardation and "being labeled." The
District I service coordinators stated that Caucasian families believe
the program has income qualifications, and the District II service
providers indicated that middle class families are not accessing Baby
Net services due to a misunderstanding about income eligibility and lack
of activities. These service providers also stated that there is no
public awareness material in day care centers, pediatric offices or
"foremost" developmental centers. District II administrators stated that
public awareness materials are not readily available in Spanish and are
not adequately distributed.

Through interviews with service providers, service coordinators, parents
and administrators across the State, OSEP was told that physician
referrals are problematic. In District I and II, service providers
pointed out that physicians tell parents to "wait and see" rather than
refer for services. A parent in District II told OSEP that she and her
mother were concerned about her child's eye-flickering behavior when her
child was three months old. Their physician told them that the child
would outgrow the eye-flickering behavior. The grandmother insisted that
the child could not see so the child was taken for to another physician
for a second opinion. The second physician confirmed that the child was
blind and referred the family to BabyNet for assistance.

A physician in District I and service providers in District II stated
that the biggest barrier to physician referral is the prevailing belief
that BabyNet is geared toward child health rather than child
development. One service coordinator in this District stated that family
practitioners in the urban area did not refer for services even though
other physicians did.

2.  **SCDHEC does not Ensure that Infant and Toddlers are Evaluated in
    all Five Developmental Areas within 45 Days**

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.322 (a) (1) require that each system
include 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.
34 CFR §303.322 (c)(3)(ii) further states that the evaluation and
assessment of each child must include an evaluation of the child's level
of functioning in each of the following developmental areas: 1)
cognitive development; 2) physical development, including vision and
hearing; 3) communication development; 4) social or emotional
development; and 5) adaptive development.

> **a) Evaluations and assessments not completed in all five
> developmental areas**

In all three heath districts visited, OSEP was informed that children
are not consistently being evaluated in all five developmental areas. In
Health District III, service coordinators, service providers and parents
stated that children are only evaluated and assessed in the
developmental area of concern. All groups interviewed confirmed that
outcomes on the IFSP are limited to future referrals for further
evaluation and assessment. Service providers in Health Districts I and
II stated that BabyNet is not ensuring comprehensive evaluations for all
children in all five developmental areas. In this Health District, the
administrators agreed that children were not evaluated in the areas of
vision and hearing. In Health District III, the administrators reported
that evaluations and assessments are not comprehensive, and do not
include all five developmental areas. Lead agency staff, Interagency
Coordinating Council members and program managers confirmed the practice
of the service coordinator "starting" the IFSP as an intake form with
the parent. They stated that referrals are made at a later date for the
completion of evaluations and assessments in the areas of concern. This
practice results in fragmented services because evaluations and
assessments to determine individual child and family service needs and
outcomes are incomplete.

> **b) Evaluations and assessments not completed within the 45-day
> timeline**

In Health District I, parents, service providers and coordinators
reported waiting lists for evaluations resulting in a failure to conduct
an evaluation and assessment and develop an IFSP within the 45-day
timeline. In a review of 18 early intervention records, OSEP found that
seven (40%) did not indicate an evaluation had been completed in all
five developmental areas within 45 days. Of the records that did not
indicate evaluations in all five developmental areas, four were records
of children who had been referred for a speech/language delay and had
been evaluated only in the area of speech. The administrators and
interagency collaborators confirmed that waiting lists existed for
evaluations and assessments. In Health Districts I and III, parents and
providers reported that personnel shortages impact the completion of
evaluations and assessments. As an example, they stated that personnel
shortages in these Health Districts can extend the completion of an
evaluation and assessment in one developmental area of concern to more
than 90 days and may take up to 120 days when completing all five
developmental areas. In Health District III, the interagency
collaborators reported that completion of evaluations and assessments
can take up to 120 days.

Lead agency staff informed OSEP that provider shortages prevented
evaluations from being completed within 45 days; service provider
managers confirmed that completion of evaluations and assessments in
some Health Districts can take up to 120 days. Local administrators,
service coordinators, and parents in all three Health Districts stated
that the BabyNet service coordinator conducts an intake visit, writes an
initial IFSP that only contains outcomes to pursue further evaluations
and assessments from qualified personnel. The delay in completing
evaluations can lead to a delay in the provision of all needed services
for the child.

3.  **SCDHEC does not Ensure that a Family-Directed Identification of
    the Needs of each Child's Family, to Appropriately Assist in the
    Development of the Child is Offered**

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.322(a)(1) require that each system
include 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.*
The regulations require that a family assessment under this part 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. Any assessment that is conducted must
be voluntary on the part of the family. If an assessment of the family
is carried out, the assessment must: 1) be conducted by personnel
trained to utilize appropriate methods and procedures; 2) be based on
information provided by the family through a personal interview; and 3)
incorporate the family's description of its resources, priorities, and
concerns related to enhancing the e child's development. 34 CFR
§303.322(e) states that, except as provided in §300.322(e)(2), the
evaluation and initial assessment of each child (including the family
assessment) must be completed within the 45-day time period required
under §303.321(e).

Twelve of the 18 (66%) IFSPs that OSEP reviewed did not contain
information indicating the completion of a family assessment. These
IFSPs did not indicate that the parents had declined to participate in
the completion of a family assessment.

In Health Districts I and II, service providers and service coordinators
told OSEP that family-directed assessments that determine and include
the families' description of its resources, priorities, and concerns
related to enhancing the child's development, are not conducted. The
administrators in these Health Districts stated that an action plan is
included on the IFSP to determine family needs. The administrators in
Health District II told OSEP that the approach to conducting family
assessments (using a resource checklist only) is not family-directed and
the families' resources, priorities and concerns are not determined. The
administrators further stated that although the providers are connecting
parents to programs such as Women Infants and Children via the resource
checklist, the local programs are not comprehensively determining the
family's needs that would assist in enhancing the child's developmental
outcomes.

# 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's responsibilities
include assisting families in understanding and exercising their rights
under Part C, arranging for assessments and IFSP meetings, and
facilitating 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 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 to meet the child's 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 typically 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. Since 1991, IDEA has required
that infants and toddlers with disabilities receive early intervention
services in natural environments. This requirement was further
reinforced by the addition of a new requirement in 1997 that early
intervention can 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.

**[Self-Assessment Report and Data Collection]{.underline}**

In the area of Early Intervention Services in the Natural Environment,
the State's Self-Assessment Report identified the following: 1) high
service coordinator caseloads influence the development of the IFSP and
the provision of services; 2) training needs to be provided in the
delivery of early intervention services in the natural environment; 3)
evaluation and assessment and IFSP development are not in compliance
with Part C; and 4) the State's ability to provide services in the
natural environment is challenged by the level of funding available and
reimbursement rates for the delivery of Part C services and the
unavailability of pediatric service providers.

######## 

## AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1.  **IFSPs do not Contain the Required Content**

OSEP finds that SCDHEC has not ensured that IFSPs are developed with the
following required content: 1) present levels of development; and 2)
statement of early intervention services needed.

Part C regulations at §303.344(a) require that present levels of
development be written into an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
in all five developmental areas based on professionally acceptable
objective criteria. OSEP found that in 12 of the 18 IFSPs reviewed prior
to the on-site visit, present levels of functioning are written in some
developmental areas, but are frequently omitted for the physical and
communication developmental areas.

In addition, Part C regulations at §303.344(b) and (c) require that the
IFSP contain, with the concurrence of the family, a statement of the
family's resources, priorities, and concerns related to enhancing the
development of the child and a statement of the major outcomes expected
to be achieved for the child and *family.* As noted in Section II of
this report, 12 of 18 (66%) of the IFSPs that OSEP reviewed did not
contain information indicating the completion of a family assessment.
These IFSPs did not indicate that the parents had declined to
participate in the family assessment process. During the interview phase
of the visit, when asked if infants, toddlers and their families had all
required services written into their IFSPs, interviewees in all areas
visited confirmed that all required services were not written into the
IFSPs*.* When asked what early intervention services were not written
into the IFSP, service providers, service coordinators, parents, and
administrators in Health District II stated that family supports are not
assessed or listed on IFSPs. When asked why family support is not
included in the IFSP, service coordinators and administrators state that
it is difficult to obtain counseling services, respite care and
parenting classes.

**2. Needed Services are Delayed or not Provided**

OSEP finds that the SCDHEC is unable to ensure the provision of needed
IFSP services for all eligible infants and toddlers and their families,
as required by Part C regulations. Early intervention services for
infants and toddlers and their families are delayed, children and
families are placed on waiting lists for both evaluations and services
and for some children and families services are not provided at all.

The State's Self-Assessment reported that not all eligible children were
receiving all of the services written in the IFSPs as evidenced by
waiting lists for services, particularly therapy services. Service
providers, service coordinators and administrators in Health District I
report waiting lists for therapy services, particularly speech therapy
services. Service providers in Health District II report waiting lists
for occupational therapy and speech therapy services. In Health District
III, service providers and administrators report waiting lists for
occupational, physical and speech therapy services. In addition to
waiting lists, Interagency Coordinating Council (ICC) members
interviewed confirmed that services written into IFSPs are not
consistently provided, especially in rural areas, due to a lack of
available providers.

# IV. PART C: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

Congress included provisions to ensure 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 SCDHEC, 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 making reasonable efforts
to convene 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.

**[Self-Assessment Report and Data Collection]{.underline}**

In the area of Early Childhood Transition, the State's Self-Assessment
identified the following: 1) transition planning needs to occur earlier
to meet IDEA Part C requirements; 2) 80 percent of families with
children under age two had not discussed planning for transition; and 3)
children in isolated and rural areas in the State experience delays in
transition. To confirm the issues identified during Self-Assessment,
OSEP asked families, providers, care coordinators and administrators
about the process of developing transition plans, and the training that
is provided to families on transition.

## AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**SCDHEC is not Meeting its Responsibility for Ensuring that the Local
Education Agency is Notified of Children Who are Approaching the Age for
Transition and for Holding a Transition Meeting in Accordance with the
Requirements of Part C of IDEA. SCDHEC is not Ensuring that Transition
Pans are Developed and Implemented in Accordance with the Requirements
under Part C of IDEA**

Federal regulations at 34 CFR §303.148(b) establish that for a child who
may be eligible for Part B preschool services, with permission of the
parent, a transition conference must be convened with the local
education agency, the lead agency and the family at least 90 days prior
to the child's third birthday. The State lead agency must notify the
local education agency for the area in which the child resides that the
child will shortly reach the age of eligibility for preschool services
under Part B of the Act, as determined in accordance with State law. For
toddlers who are not Part B eligible, the lead agency must make
reasonable efforts to convene a transition conference.

OSEP held joint interviews with both Part C and Part B representatives
in Health Districts II and III who reported that the practice of
convening a transition conference is not consistently adhered to,
regardless of Part B eligibility. Service providers, service
coordinators, and parents in Health District III confirm that the
transition meeting does not occur 90 days prior to the third birthday
for all children in this Health District, and that steps to prepare a
child for a new environment are not found in the IFSP.

Service coordinators and service providers in Health District II
informed OSEP that some children wait for placement until the child is
"picked up" by the school system. In Health District I, three of the six
age-applicable records reviewed did not have evidence of reasonable
efforts to assist with transition planning in the absence of a 90-day
conference. Record reviews, completed in Health District II, do not
demonstrate evidence of any 90-day conferences prior to a child's third
birthday. In Health District III, two out of three IFSPs reviewed for
toddlers turning three did not indicate efforts to coordinate transition
activities or document any 90-day transition conferences.

Interviewees provided additional information about barriers to
transition planning that could be useful as the State develops
improvement strategies related to transition: 1) BabyNet makes late
referrals to Part B because parents do not want their child to be
referred to the public schools to Part B; 2) children that are enrolled
in foster care are "lost in the system"; 3) service coordinators need
early childhood transition training; 4) transition procedures are
different across school districts; 5) need for "down home"
collaboration; 6) there are no placement options available for children
outside of the school districts, i.e., preschool special education
centers; 7) school districts do not accept BabyNet evaluations and
cannot complete timely evaluations for placement by the child's third
birthday.

# V. 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."

**[Self-Assessment Report and Data Collection]{.underline}**

Steering Committee members proposed improvement planning strategies in
the Self-Assessment Report to address the following areas they
identified as needing improvement: 1) as a result of personnel vacancies
for special education teachers, school psychologists, and speech
therapists, special education and related services are based on the
availability of special education programs and staff which impact the
provision of and the timely delivery of special education and related
services to meet the need of students with disabilities; 2) young
children with disabilities may not receive appropriate services on their
third birthday; 3) children with disabilities may not receive services
in the IEP; and 4) there is a lack of functional behavioral assessments
and behavioral improvement plans to address the behavioral needs of
children with disabilities.[^3]

In addition, OSEP noted insufficient data in the Self-Assessment Report
in order to conclude whether students with disabilities who are placed
in separate classes are involved in and progress in the general
curriculum, and how the State ensures that appropriate services are
provided to address the behavioral needs of children with disabilities.
Therefore, OSEP investigated these areas in its on-site-monitoring visit
by reviewing children's records, State and local policies and
procedures, and interviewing State personnel, local program
administrators, teachers, and parents. By analyzing data reviewed, OSEP
identified the following areas of noncompliance that impact improved
results for children with disabilities.

## A. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1.  **Psychological Counseling is not Considered as Part of a Free
    Appropriate Public Education and is not Included when Appropriate in
    the IEP**

States and local school districts must make a free appropriate public
education available to all eligible children with disabilities. A free
appropriate public education includes the provision of special education
and related services, without charge, which meet the State education
standards and IDEA requirements, and are provided in conformity with an
IEP. "Related services" is defined, in part, as including
"transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive
services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit
from special education, and includes psychological services,"
§300.24(a). Public agencies must provide to students with disabilities
any related services, including psychological counseling, that they need
to benefit from special education (34 CFR §§300.300 and 300.24). If the
participants on the IEP team determine that an eligible child with a
disability requires psychological counseling in order to receive a free
appropriate public education, the school district must provide that
service and the service must be described in the child's IEP. The
child's IEP must include a statement of the special education and
related services to be provided to the child as well as the anticipated
frequency, location and duration of those services. The amount of
related services to be provided must be stated in the IEP so that the
level of the agency\'s commitment of resources will be clear to parents
and other IEP team members. (§§300.347(a)-(b)). The amount of time to be
committed to each of the various services to be provided must be: 1)
appropriate to the specific service; and 2) stated in the IEP in a
manner that is clear to all who are involved in both the development and
implementation of the IEP. Any related services provided must assist the
child in developing skills needed to benefit from special education or
correct conditions which interfere with the child's progress toward the
goals and objectives listed in the IEP.

OSEP found, in the five districts visited, that psychological counseling
services are not provided as a related service except as a result of due
process hearings. OSEP also found that psychological counseling services
are only provided to students who are determined eligible for Part B
services in the category of emotional disabilities[^4]. SCDE officials
explained that psychological counseling services are considered mental
health services in the State and are provided through mental health
agencies across the State. Mental health services are provided in
groups, individually, or on an as needed basis, as determined by school
personnel, and are not provided through the IEP process as a related
service.

Although the provision of required services through an agency outside
the school district is not inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements of the IDEA, the IEP team must first determine
what services are required to enable the child to benefit from special
education, then include those services in the student's IEP and provide
them as a component of a free appropriate public education. In all
districts visited, psychological counseling services were rarely listed
in the IEP. Only two of 42 files that OSEP reviewed of students whose
category of disability was "emotional disabilities," had psychological
counseling listed in the IEP as a related service. The psychological
counseling services listed in the IEPs for these two students were the
result of due process hearing decisions. Nineteen staff members that
included school psychologists, special education teachers, special
education directors, and school counselors, provided the following
reasons why psychological counseling services are not identified in the
IEP: psychological counseling services are not available; the
psychologist does not have the time to provide these services due to
large caseloads; it is assumed that counseling services are part of the
students' special education program; school staff has been instructed to
exclude counseling services in the IEP because the district will not pay
for the services; mental health provider agencies have requested that
counseling services not be placed in the IEP; and it is impossible to
include counseling in the IEPs because the school does not directly
provide the service.

OSEP also found that psychological counseling services were only
provided to students who were determined eligible for Part B services in
the category of emotional disabilities, regardless of students' need for
psychological counseling services to benefit from special education and
related services. In one district, two special education teachers, a
building administrator and special education director reported to OSEP
that students with emotional disabilities are the only students with
disabilities receiving counseling services and that they are receiving
them through a contract with a mental health agency. The building
administrator further reported that there is not enough staff to expand
the general education counseling program to service students with
disabilities who may be in need of counseling services to benefit from
special education. The special education director told OSEP that the
rationale for only serving students with emotional disabilities was due
to a lack of funding.

According to a third special education teacher in this district,
psychological counseling services are only available to students with
emotional disabilities on a crisis basis. The special education teacher
also stated that there is inadequate support to meet the counseling
needs of her classroom of 20 students with emotional disabilities. Two
special education teachers for students with "educable mental
disabilities[^5]" reported that they have students who need
psychological counseling services to benefit from special education but
they cannot consider these services at an IEP meeting because they are
not available for students with educable mental disabilities. They
explained that psychological counseling services are only available for
the students with emotional disabilities. The two special educators
further explained that their caseloads prevented them from addressing
the behavioral issues of their students and that if the students could
receive psychological counseling services, their behavioral needs would
be addressed.

In a second district, a building administrator and two special education
teachers told OSEP that there are "no psychological counseling services
except the counseling that all students receive through the guidance
counselors." A school psychologist informed OSEP that mental health
counseling services are provided to the students with emotional
disabilities only when the parents pursue those services at the school's
suggestion.

According to a special education teacher in a third district, when a
student with emotional disabilities has a need for psychological
counseling services, the school encourages the parents to get these
services through the mental health center. Another special educator told
OSEP that the mental health counselor would come to the school to
provide counseling services to students with disabilities on an
emergency or as-needed basis. These services are usually discussed
between the mental health counselor, parent and student and are not the
result of related services identified through the IEP process.

2.  **SCDE has not Made a Free Appropriate Public Education Available to
    Children Eligible for Special Education and Related Services by
    Their Third Birthday**

Under Part B, the local education agency is required to ensure that: 1)
a free appropriate public education is available to all children with
disabilities beginning at age three; and 2) an IEP or IFSP, if
appropriate, is in effect on the child\'s third birthday
([See]{.underline} §§300.300(a), 300.121(c), §300.125(c) and 300.132
(b)). If the child's third birthday occurs during the summer, the
child's IEP team must determine the date when services under the IEP or
IFSP will begin, based on the individual needs of the child. Under
§300.125(c), if the State educational agency and Part C lead agency are,
as in South Carolina, different agencies, the State educational agency
remains responsible for ensuring that its child find responsibilities
under Part B are met, even if the agencies, through an interagency
agreement, delegate to the lead agency the primary role in child find
for the birth through two population.

OSEP reviewed 10 files, in four districts, of preschoolers who received
early intervention services. Seven of the 10 files, including IEPs,
showed that children who received early intervention services and turned
three during the school year, did not receive special education and
related services by their third birthday. Special educators, building
administrators and pre-school coordinators interviewed, explained that
services were delayed because evaluations to determine Part B
eligibility were not conducted prior to the child's third birthday. In
addition, through interviews with special educators, building
administrators, preschool coordinators, and State personnel, OSEP found
that SCDE has not ensured that, for children with disabilities who turn
age three close to or during the summer months, the child's IEP team
determines the date for starting services based upon the needs of the
child rather than the availability of resources.

Although South Carolina's 1996 "Interagency Agreement for the
Development and Implementation of a Statewide System of Services for
Children with Disabilities, Birth through Two Years and Their Families,"
provides that SCDE and SCDHEC will have joint child find
responsibilities for children under the age of three, under §300.125(c),
SCDE remains primarily responsible for ensuring that its child find
responsibilities under Part B are met. This provision is intended, in
part, to ensure that interagency disputes do not result in a free
appropriate public education not being available to all children with
disabilities beginning at age three.

According to an SCDE official, in keeping with the 1996 interagency
agreement, when developing the local educational agency memorandum of
agreement, the local educational agency must agree to accept clinical
evaluations from early intervention programs*.* "Screenings and
evaluations from early intervention programs are to be used within a 12
month period for any area of disability." The SCDE official further
explained that although local educational agencies have the authority to
accept these clinical evaluations, some local educational agencies are
not accepting the evaluation results that could be used to determine a
youngster's eligibility for special education and related services by
the child's third birthday.

A child find coordinator, a special educator, preschool coordinator, and
a SCDE official told OSEP that the required assessments to determine
eligibility for preschoolers who received early intervention services,
are not always completed before the child's third birthday. The
preschool coordinator told OSEP, "Preschoolers, who are almost three
years of age, are placed on a list that may identify, through
assessment, youngsters who may be eligible for special education and
related services. Youngsters identified from this list will be tested
when they reach their third birthday." Due to this delay in assessment,
children in need of special education and related services do not
receive them by their third birthday.

#######  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

As noted above, the IEP team must decide the beginning date for services
for children with disabilities whose third birthday occurs during the
summer. 34 CFR §300.121(c)(2). Moreover, the IEP or IFSP, if
appropriate, must be in effect by the child's third birthday even if the
date for initiating services is not until the start of the school year.
34 CFR §300.121(c)(1)(ii). OSEP found that IEP team decisions regarding
the provision of special education and related services to eligible
children who reach their third birthday during the summer months are
based on administrative factors and not on the individual needs of the
child.

Three districts reported that, regardless of need, the provision of
special education and related services were not always considered for
Part B eligible children who reach their third birthday during the
summer months. Due to personnel shortages during the summer months,
these children do not receive services until the beginning of the next
school year.

A special education teacher in one district told OSEP, "We have never
had a preschool child receive services during the summer." According to
this special educator, although the IEP team meets in May to look at the
provision of services to preschoolers with disabilities, the reasons to
begin special education and related services before the next school year
are always dismissed. In this same district, a preschool coordinator
reported, "the district has never had a child receive preschool summer
services because there is no place to put them until school starts in
the fall." A building administrator in the same district confirmed this
practice. According to the special education director in this district,
"We do not provide services during the summer to children turning three
years of age. It is assumed that they will start in August." The
administrator further reported that preschoolers with disabilities whose
birthdays occur at the end of the school year might not be receiving
special education and related services during the summer months due to a
shortage of personnel in all special education positions. The special
education director in a second district stated that the district does
not provide special education and related services to Part B eligible
children transitioning from Part C early intervention services who reach
their third birthday during the summer, regardless of need. A preschool
coordinator in a third district told OSEP that since there are no staff
available during the summer, preschoolers who reach three years of age
during the summer do not receive special education and related services
by their third birthday regardless of need. The provision of services is
delayed until the fall. The State education administrator told OSEP,
"This is especially true for services to preschoolers with disabilities
who reside in rural areas. In the rural areas, the schools close down
for the summer due to a shortage of personnel."

3.  **Appropriate Personnel Do Not Determine Needed Services and
    Settings for Children With Disabilities Suspended or Expelled**

Under 34 CFR 300.121(d)(3)(ii), where the IEP team determines that the
behavior that led to a child's removal was not a manifestation of the
child's disability, the IEP team must determine the extent to which
services are necessary to enable the child to appropriately progress in
the general curriculum and appropriately advance toward achieving the
goals set out in the child's IEP. If a student with disabilities carries
a weapon to school or to a school function under the jurisdiction of a
State or a local educational agency; or knowingly possesses or uses
illegal drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a controlled substance
while at school or a school function under the jurisdiction of a State
or local educational agency, school personnel may order a change in
placement to an interim alternative educational setting for the same
amount of time that a child without a disability would be subject to
discipline, but for not more than 45 days.

34 CFR §§300.520. The interim alternative educational setting for a
student thus removed must be determined by the IEP team so as to enable
the child to continue to progress in the general curriculum, although in
another setting, and to continue to receive those services and
modifications, including those described in the child\'s current IEP.
The setting must also enable the child to meet the goals set out in that
IEP and must include services and modifications to address the behavior
that caused the removal and that are designed to prevent the behavior
from recurring. 34 CFR §300.522.

OSEP found that the IEP team did not, in all cases, determine the
interim alternative educational setting or the extent to which services
are necessary, where a child is expelled for behavior related to weapons
or drugs that were not a manifestation of the child's disability.

The State's January 22, 2002 memorandum regarding *Alternative School
Issues* informed coordinators of programs for students with disabilities
in South Carolina that IEP teams must determine the extent of services
to be provided to students with disabilities in interim alternative
educational settings. According to the memorandum, each student's IEP
team must determine the appropriate amount of special education and
related services that the student must receive and determine how the
services will be delivered. The memorandum further states that this
cannot be a unilateral decision made by school district personnel at
either the student\'s regular school or the alternative school.

In four districts, a school psychologist, a homebound coordinator and
two special education directors told OSEP that for a student who is
expelled for weapons and/or drugs offenses, the IEP team meets to
determine if the behavior is a manifestation of the student's
disability. OSEP was told that after the IEP team determines that the
behavior is not a manifestation of the child's disability, the case is
referred to a local board that has the authority to expel the student.
The decision to provide services by placing students with disabilities
into interim alternative educational settings is not an IEP team
decision as required under IDEA. A special education director in one
district told OSEP that after the IEP team meets to make a manifestation
determination, the discipline board would make the placement decision
for the interim alternative educational setting. According to a regular
education teacher, after the IEP team determines that the infraction is
not based on the disability, a discipline council makes the
determination to provide services to the students with disabilities
either in the alternative school or at home.

OSEP was also told that, in the majority of cases, services that were
received by students with disabilities while in an interim alternative
educational setting were determined by a discipline council or district
office personnel. In two districts two special education directors and a
building administrator told OSEP that if the student is expelled, the
hearing officer decides the interim alternative educational setting and
the district office personnel determines the services. In two other
districts, school staff interviewed reported that the discipline board
determines services.

OSEP also found in four districts visited that the criteria for
selecting the appropriate interim alternative educational setting were
not applied when students were placed at home. Students removed for
disciplinary reasons and placed at home were provided the minimum amount
of services, one period per day, regardless of whether more
instructional time was needed to enable the child to continue to
progress in the general education curriculum and continue to receive
those services and modifications, including those described in the
child's current IEP, that will enable the child to meet the goals set
out in that IEP. (See 34 CFR §300.522.) A homebound coordinator from one
district and building administrators, special education directors and
special education teachers in three districts, told OSEP that students
placed at home received one period of service per school day, regardless
of need. District personnel in the fourth district reported that some
schools automatically provide just one period a day of instruction for
students placed at home, while others determine the interim alternative
educational setting according to appropriate selection criteria.

SCDE officials explained that the practice of providing only one period
of instructional time per day for students removed for disciplinary
reasons to an interim alternative educational setting at home, was the
result of school personnel applying an incorrect standard contained in
South Carolina's 1995 *State Board of Regulation for Homebound
Instruction.* Education officials further explained that there is no
limit to the amount of instruction that may be provided, and that the
regulation was being revised.

## AREAS OF CONCERN

1.  ***Qualifications and Impartiality of Hearing Officers for
    Discipline Matters***

Under 34 CFR §300.507, a parent may initiate a hearing before an
impartial hearing officer whenever a public agency proposes to initiate
or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of,
or the provision of a free appropriate public education to, a child with
disabilities. 34 CFR §300.525 further provides that, if the student's
parents disagree with a determination of whether the student's
misconduct was a manifestation of his or her disability or disagree with
a decision regarding placement under the discipline procedures set forth
in §§300.520 through 300.528, they may request and are entitled to an
expedited hearing. Where a student's misconduct is such that maintaining
the current placement of a child with a disability is substantially
likely to result in injury to the child or to others, a hearing officer
may order a change in the placement of the child to an appropriate
interim alternative educational setting for not more than 45 days. 34
CFR §300.521.

There is no distinction in Part B of the IDEA between hearing officers
in expedited due process hearings regarding discipline under §§300.520
through 300.528 and those under 34 CFR §300.507. Hearing officers for
discipline hearings must meet the same standards of impartiality and
knowledge as other hearing officers under the Act. See, *Analysis of
Comments and Changes to Final Rules*, 64 Fed. Reg. 12621 (March 12,
1999). The hearing officer requirements are set out at 34 CFR §300.508,
and require that the hearing officer not be an employee of the State
agency or the LEA that is involved in the education or care of the child
have a personal or professional interest that would conflict with his or
her objectivity in the hearing. However, a person who otherwise
qualifies as a hearing officer is not an employee of the agency solely
because he or she is paid by the agency to serve as a hearing officer.
These standards are important because, in fashioning appropriate relief,
hearing officers will exercise their judgment in the context of all the
factors involved in an individual case.

An SCDE official reported to OSEP that, in some instances, the hearing
officers who review the interim alternative educational setting
placement decisions under §§300.521 and 300.522 do not meet the
requirements for impartial hearing officers. This official reported that
due to the costs of an impartial hearing officer, many districts use
local administrative hearing officers who do not meet the requirements
of §300.508. If accurate, this practice would constitute a violation of
Part B of IDEA. Because this information was provided late during OSEP's
visit, staff did not have the opportunity for on-site follow-up with
individual districts. The State needs to investigate this issue and
determine whether the hearing officers conducting expedited disciplinary
hearings meet the requirements of §300.508, and if not, ensure immediate
correction.

***2. Provision of Supplementary Aids and Services for Children with
Disabilities to be Successful in the Regular Education Classroom***

> Section 618(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Act (20 USC 1418(a)(1)(A)(iii))
> requires that each State provide data on the number of children with
> disabilities, by race, ethnicity, and disability category, who are
> participating in regular education. OSEP noted in its review of the
> 618 data submitted by SCDE for 1999-2000 that South Carolina ranks
> 45th among the 58 Part B eligible States and entities for students
> with disabilities, ages 6-21, served outside the regular class for
> 21-60% of the day and 43rd for students with disabilities, in this
> same age range, are served outside the regular classroom for more than
> 61% of the day.[^6]

IDEA requires the IEP team to determine, and the public agency to
provide, the accommodations, modifications, supports and supplementary
aids and services, needed by each child with a disability to be
successfully involved and progress in the general curriculum, and be
educated together with their nondisabled peers. 34 CFR §300.347(a)(3).
OSEP found that there is a lack of support and services for general
education teachers to ensure that students with disabilities are
successful in the general curriculum and to educated in the regular
education classroom.

An education official told OSEP that "the attitudes of the regular
educator regarding the provision of special education and related
services to students with disabilities in the regular classroom are the
hardest to change and as a result it is hard to move a student with
disabilities from the self-contained to resource placement." The
education official also identified the following barriers to the
provision of services to students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment: identification of appropriate IEP
accommodations and modifications; training of general education staff on
working with children with disabilities; using behavioral intervention
plans in a reactive way instead of using them in a proactive manner;
and, providing effective training for district personnel on the use of
behavioral tools.

Two special educators and an administrator in one district reported that
general education teachers are unwilling to work with students with
disabilities who have discipline problems due to a lack of supports and
services for the regular education teacher. A third special educator
told OSEP that she felt there would be fewer students with disabilities
who drop out of school if there were more teacher supports for students
with disabilities.

In another district, a special education teacher told OSEP that students
with disabilities who have limited attention spans would be kept from
going into the regular education classroom, since supports and services
were unavailable. A second special education teacher reported that
because the population in the school had increased, the regular class
sizes were enormous. She noted that if there was space in the regular
class, two students with disabilities in her self-contained class could
attend a regular education health class. In another self-contained
placement, eight of 15 students with disabilities attended regular
classes for a portion of the day. The special education teacher for this
class informed OSEP that if there were more class offerings, he would be
able to place the remaining seven students in regular education health
classes.

# VI. 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.

**[Previous Monitoring Findings, Self-Assessment Report and Data
Collection]{.underline}**

OSEP's 1995 on-site review report of SCDE's implementation of Part B of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Part B) identified that
SCDE did not consistently meet its responsibility to ensure that SCDE
exercised its general supervisory authority over programs providing
special education and related services to children with disabilities.
Specifically, SCDE's monitoring system failed to include methods to
monitor for implementation of Part B requirements related to the
placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive
environment, and provision of a free appropriate public education.

OSEP gathered information from the Self-Assessment Report, the Part B
State Steering Committee, and information from the State regarding
SCDE's responsibility to ensure that all education programs for children
with disabilities meet Part B requirements and State education
standards. To investigate the concerns identified in the Self-Assessment
Report, OSEP staff reviewed children's records and State and local
policies and procedures, and interviewed State personnel, local program
administrators, teachers, and parents. OSEP reviewed and analyzed this
data and identified the following areas of noncompliance that impact
improved results for children with disabilities.

## AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**SCDE is Ineffective in Exercising its General Supervisory Authority
over Local Educational Agencies**

34 CFR §300.600(a)(2) requires States to ensure that each educational
program for children with disabilities administered within the State is
under the general supervision of the persons responsible for educational
programs for children with disabilities. OSEP finds that SDCE has not
exercised its general supervisory authority through its monitoring,
complaint, and due process systems in a manner necessary to ensure that
children with disabilities receive the special education and related
services to which they are entitled under Part B.

> ***1) SCDE's Monitoring System is Ineffective at Identifying and
> Correcting Deficiencies in Local Educational Agencies.***

Prior to OSEP's visit, SCDE monitored the same five sites that OSEP
selected for data collection and SCDE issued a monitoring report with
corrective actions to each local school district. One of the local
agencies had been monitored during the school year 1998-1999.[^7] During
school years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, SCDE monitored the other four
agencies, using SCDE's current monitoring procedures and process. OSEP
also reviewed SCDE\'s corrective action requirements for the five sites
visited. At the time of OSEP's visit, corrective actions had been
completed in four of the five local school districts SCDE had monitored.
As explained below, OSEP found that SCDE's monitoring procedures are not
effective in identifying and correcting all areas of noncompliance.

As set out in Section V of this Report, all five districts OSEP visited
were not providing psychological services as a related service, except
as the result of a due process hearing. OSEP found that psychological
counseling services were only provided to students who are determined
eligible for Part B services in the category of emotional disabilities
or as ordered through a due process hearings. In four of five districts,
SCDE did not identify the lack of psychological counseling as
noncompliant. In the fifth district, SCDE found that the agency did not
consistently document the eligibility and consideration of counseling as
a related service for students with emotional disabilities and stated in
it's finding that "the IEP team should always consider counseling as a
related service." However, as a corrective action, SCDE required the
district to document, in a sample of student files, the appropriate
eligibility and evaluation components and include two psycho-educational
evaluations or other supporting documentation. At the time of OSEP's
visit, this district had completed the corrective action. As a result,
OSEP concludes that SCDE's monitoring system fails to identify and
correct deficiencies in local school districts for children with
disabilities who may need psychological counseling as a related service.

As indicated in Section V of this Report, four districts, where OSEP
reviewed the files of preschool children, did not provide special
education and related services to children with disabilities by their
third birthday, though the birthday occurred during the school year. In
some instances, special education services were delayed because
evaluations to determine eligibility were not conducted prior to the
child's third birthday. In other instances, OSEP found that services
were not provided for children with disabilities who turn age three
close to or during the summer months regardless of the needs of the
child. SCDE's monitoring system found that one of these districts did
not consistently have IEPs[^8] ready to implement on the child's third
birthday. In two other districts, SCDE found that the local school
districts failed to consistently attend Part C to Part B transition
meetings 90 days prior to a child's third birthday so that services
could be initiated. However, the corrective actions that resulted from
these findings by SCDE were not effective because OSEP found the same or
similar findings during its monitoring.

In fact, in reviewing South Carolina's monitoring manual, OSEP found
that SCDE is using an incorrect standard for monitoring the provision of
a free appropriate public education at age three for students whose
birthday occurs during the summer months. Page eight of South Carolina's
*"Monitoring Manual for Determining Compliance Under IDEA, 2001-2002"*
addresses the compliance standard for IEPs being in effect by the
child's third birthday as follows: "In cases where the child turns age
three between the ending date of one school year and the beginning date
of the subsequent school year, the IEP is in effect on the beginning
date of the subsequent school year." As noted in Section V of this
Report, although the child's IEP team determines the date when services
under the IEP or IFSP will begin, an IEP or IFSP, if appropriate, must
be in effect by the child's third birthday.

As described in Section V of this Report, OSEP found, in four of five
districts visited, that decisions regarding placement and services for
students with disabilities that are suspended or expelled are not
determined through the IEP process by appropriate personnel. In SCDE's
monitoring, SCDE failed to identify this as an area of noncompliance in
three of these four districts. In the fifth district where OSEP did not
make a finding, but SCDE found that disciplinary procedures were not
documented, SCDE required the district to provide an assurance that all
policies and procedures will be followed when implementing disciplinary
actions. Therefore, OSEP concludes that SCDE's monitoring system is
ineffective in identifying and correcting deficiencies in disciplinary
procedures for students with disabilities.

2)  ***SCDE does not ensure that all Part B Complaints are Resolved
    Consistent with Part B requirements***

As set forth at §300.661(a) and (b)(1), SCDE is responsible for ensuring
that a complaint is resolved and a final decision is issued within 60
days of filing, unless there is an extension of time. According to the
booklet *System for Investigation of Complaints Received from
Constituents Relative to a Free Appropriate Public Education*, a formal
complaint by a parent or an organization is to be filed with the State.
SCDE staff informed OSEP that one district requires parents to file
complaints with the local district first. In this case, SCDE personnel
told OSEP that if a complaint is filed with the district, the State does
not see the complaint and is not able to log the complaint to ensure it
is resolved within the required timelines. OSEP's review of SCDE's
complaint log showed that from 1999-2001 the State received 73
complaints. Twenty-four of the complaints were resolved within the
required timelines. Further analysis of the logs showed that resolutions
for 49 of the complaints exceeded the 60-day time line in the following
manner: 25 complaints were overdue by 61-100 days; 19 were over due by
101-150 days; four by 151-300 days; and one by more than 301 days. There
was no documentation of exceptional circumstances for these overdue
complaints. In addition, at the time of OSEP's visit, SCDE tracked
complaint timelines from the date the complaint is received in the State
office to the date of the decision, instead of to the date the letter of
findings is mailed to the complainant.

3)  ***SCDE does not ensure that Due Process Hearing and Review
    Decisions are Conducted in a manner that is Consistent with Federal
    Requirements***

In accordance with §300.507(a), a parent or a public agency may initiate
a due process hearing on any of the matters described in §300.503(a)
related to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a
child with a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public
education for the child. Sections 300.511(a) and (b) require that the
public agency shall ensure that not later than 45 days after the receipt
of a request for a hearing, a final decision is reached in the hearing.
Section 300.511 requires that the State education agency ensure that not
later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for review, a final
decision is reached in the review. Under §300.511 a hearing or review
officer may, at the request of a party, grant a specific extension of
time beyond the 45-day period for a due process hearing decision or the
30-day period for a review decision.

Based on interviews with SCDE personnel and the review of due process
hearing logs, OSEP found that the State does not have an adequate system
in place to track and ensure that decisions for due process hearings are
reached and a copy of the decision is mailed to each party within 45
days, unless extended at the request of either party. SCDE has a
two-tier system for due process hearings. SCDE officials explained that
local school districts do not notify the State when due process hearings
have been filed. OSEP's review of SCDE's due process logs showed that
for 33 due process hearings filed between 1999 and 200, the State did
not track timelines from the date the request was filed with the local
educational agency to the date of the decision. According to the logs
for State level appeals, all six appeals filed between 1999-2001
exceeded the 30-day timeline. The logs did not indicate whether the
second tier Hearing Officer granted extensions. Appeal decisions were
issued 51 to 112 days after the date of filing. SCDE personnel told OSEP
that appeals extended beyond the 30-day timeline because clerk reporters
do not file the reports on the date they were received; therefore, the
State had no method of tracking timeline extensions.

[^1]: Source: South Carolina Part C Self-Assessment, June 2001.

[^2]: Source: South Carolina Self-Assessment and South Carolina Part C
    Improvement Plan Draft, May 2002.

[^3]: These areas were addressed in South Carolina's Improvement Plan
    submitted to OSEP on July 2002. Upon finalization, OSEP will be
    monitoring implementation and impact of improvement plan activities.

[^4]: This category is equivalent to the emotional disturbance category
    in the Federal regulations.

[^5]: This category is the equivalent of mental retardation in the
    Federal regulations.

[^6]: Information for OSEP's review was obtained from the December 1,
    1999 child count report that provided data on the number and
    percentage of children ages 6-21 served in different educational
    environments under IDEA, Part B during the 1999-2000 school year.

[^7]: Although SCDE monitored this district prior to the March 12, 1999
    final regulations promulgated under Part B of the IDEA, SCDE was
    required to ensure that local educational agencies complied with the
    statutory provisions in effect under IDEA 1997. The provisions
    regarding psychological counseling, as a related service, and FAPE
    at age three were not substantively revised by the IDEA 1997
    Amendments.

[^8]: Under Part B, an IFSP that contains the material described in 636
    of the Act and that is developed in accordance with Part B IEP
    requirements may serve as the IEP of the child. However, using that
    plan as the IEP is not consistent with South Carolina's policy.