+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| **Monitoring  | **Status of APR Data/SPP        | **OSEP            |
| Priorities    | Revision Issues**               | Analysis/Next     |
| and           |                                 | Steps**           |
| Indicators**  |                                 |                   |
+===============+=================================+===================+
| 1.  Percent   | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
|     of youth  | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
|     with IEPs | 32.54%. These data represent    | efforts to        |
|               | progress from the FFY 2005 data | improve           |
|    graduating | of 29.6%.                       | performance.[^1]  |
|     from high |                                 |                   |
|     school    | The State met its FFY 2006      |                   |
|     with a    | target of 31.6%.                |                   |
|     regular   |                                 |                   |
|     diploma   |                                 |                   |
|     compared  |                                 |                   |
|     to        |                                 |                   |
|     percent   |                                 |                   |
|     of all    |                                 |                   |
|     youth in  |                                 |                   |
|     the State |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
|    graduating |                                 |                   |
|     with a    |                                 |                   |
|     regular   |                                 |                   |
|     diploma.  |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 2.  Percent   | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
|     of youth  | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
|     with IEPs | 2.6%. These data represent      | efforts to        |
|     dropping  | progress from the FFY 2005 data | improve           |
|     out of    | of 4.40%. The State met its FFY | performance.      |
|     high      | 2006 target of 4.15%.           |                   |
|     school    |                                 |                   |
|     compared  |                                 |                   |
|     to the    |                                 |                   |
|     percent   |                                 |                   |
|     of all    |                                 |                   |
|     youth in  |                                 |                   |
|     the State |                                 |                   |
|     dropping  |                                 |                   |
|     out of    |                                 |                   |
|     high      |                                 |                   |
|     school.   |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 3\.           | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| Participation | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| and           | 100%. These data represent      | efforts to        |
| performance   | progress from the FFY 2005 data | improve           |
| of children   | of 69%. The State met its FFY   | performance.      |
| with          | 2006 target of 73%.             |                   |
| disabilities  |                                 |                   |
| on statewide  |                                 |                   |
| assessments:  |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| A. Percent of |                                 |                   |
| districts     |                                 |                   |
| that have a   |                                 |                   |
| disability    |                                 |                   |
| subgroup that |                                 |                   |
| meets the     |                                 |                   |
| State's       |                                 |                   |
| minimum "n"   |                                 |                   |
| size meeting  |                                 |                   |
| the State's   |                                 |                   |
| AYP           |                                 |                   |
| objectives    |                                 |                   |
| for progress  |                                 |                   |
| for           |                                 |                   |
| disability    |                                 |                   |
| subgroup.     |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 3\.           | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| Participation | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| and           | 99%. These data remain          | efforts to        |
| performance   | unchanged from the FFY 2005     | improve           |
| of children   | data of 99%. The State met its  | performance.      |
| with          | FFY 2006 target of 99%.         |                   |
| disabilities  |                                 |                   |
| on statewide  |                                 |                   |
| assessments:  |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| B.            |                                 |                   |
| Participation |                                 |                   |
| rate for      |                                 |                   |
| children with |                                 |                   |
| IEPs in a     |                                 |                   |
| regular       |                                 |                   |
| assessment    |                                 |                   |
| with no       |                                 |                   |
| ac            |                                 |                   |
| commodations; |                                 |                   |
| regular       |                                 |                   |
| assessment    |                                 |                   |
| with          |                                 |                   |
| ac            |                                 |                   |
| commodations; |                                 |                   |
| alternate     |                                 |                   |
| assessment    |                                 |                   |
| against grade |                                 |                   |
| level         |                                 |                   |
| standards;    |                                 |                   |
| alternate     |                                 |                   |
| assessment    |                                 |                   |
| against       |                                 |                   |
| alternate     |                                 |                   |
| achievement   |                                 |                   |
| standards.    |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 3.            | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP looks        |
| Participation | data for this indicator are     | forward to the    |
|     and       | 36%. These data represent       | State's data      |
|               | progress from the FFY 2005 data | demonstrating     |
|   performance | of 34.8%. The State did not     | improvement in    |
|     of        | meet its FFY 2006 target of     | performance in    |
|     children  | 38.8%.                          | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|     with      |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009.             |
|  disabilities |                                 |                   |
|     on        |                                 |                   |
|     statewide |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
|  assessments: |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| C.            |                                 |                   |
| Proficiency   |                                 |                   |
| rate for      |                                 |                   |
| children with |                                 |                   |
| IEPs against  |                                 |                   |
| grade level   |                                 |                   |
| standards and |                                 |                   |
| alternate     |                                 |                   |
| achievement   |                                 |                   |
| standards.    |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 4\. Rates of  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP's June 15,   |
| suspension    | data for this indicator are     | 2007 FFY 2005     |
| and           | 13%. These data represent       | SPP/APR response  |
| expulsion:    | progress from the FFY 2005 data | table required    |
|               | of 14%. The State did not meet  | the State to      |
| A. Percent of | its FFY 2006 target of 11%.     | clarify, in the   |
| districts     |                                 | FFY 2006 APR, due |
| identified by |                                 | February 1, 2008, |
| the State as  |                                 | whether it        |
| having a      |                                 | reviews the       |
| significant   |                                 | policies,         |
| discrepancy   |                                 | procedures, and   |
| in the rates  |                                 | practices in the  |
| of            |                                 | areas identified  |
| suspensions   |                                 | in 34 CFR         |
| and           |                                 | §300.170(b), for  |
| expulsions of |                                 | all LEAs, and not |
| children with |                                 | just those LEAs   |
| disabilities  |                                 | selected for      |
| for greater   |                                 | focused           |
| than 10 days  |                                 | monitoring,       |
| in a school   |                                 | identified as     |
| year; and     |                                 | having            |
|               |                                 | significant       |
| \[Results     |                                 | discrepancies in  |
| Indicator\]   |                                 | the rates of      |
|               |                                 | long-term         |
|               |                                 | suspensions and   |
|               |                                 | expulsions of     |
|               |                                 | students with     |
|               |                                 | disabilities. The |
|               |                                 | State clarified   |
|               |                                 | in the FFY 2006   |
|               |                                 | APR that it       |
|               |                                 | reviews the       |
|               |                                 | policies,         |
|               |                                 | procedures, and   |
|               |                                 | practices for all |
|               |                                 | LEAs identified   |
|               |                                 | with significant  |
|               |                                 | discrepancies in  |
|               |                                 | the rate of       |
|               |                                 | long-term         |
|               |                                 | suspensions and   |
|               |                                 | expulsions of     |
|               |                                 | students with     |
|               |                                 | disabilities, as  |
|               |                                 | required by 34    |
|               |                                 | CFR §300.170(b).  |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | OSEP's June 15,   |
|               |                                 | 2007 FFY 2005     |
|               |                                 | SPP/APR response  |
|               |                                 | table also        |
|               |                                 | required the      |
|               |                                 | State to describe |
|               |                                 | the review, and   |
|               |                                 | if appropriate    |
|               |                                 | revision, of      |
|               |                                 | policies,         |
|               |                                 | procedures, and   |
|               |                                 | practices         |
|               |                                 | relating to the   |
|               |                                 | development and   |
|               |                                 | implementation of |
|               |                                 | IEPs, the use of  |
|               |                                 | positive          |
|               |                                 | behavioral        |
|               |                                 | interventions and |
|               |                                 | supports, and     |
|               |                                 | procedural        |
|               |                                 | safeguards to     |
|               |                                 | ensure compliance |
|               |                                 | with the IDEA for |
|               |                                 | the LEAs          |
|               |                                 | identified as     |
|               |                                 | having            |
|               |                                 | significant       |
|               |                                 | discrepancies in  |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2005 APR. |
|               |                                 | The State         |
|               |                                 | provided the      |
|               |                                 | required          |
|               |                                 | description for   |
|               |                                 | those LEAs        |
|               |                                 | identified with   |
|               |                                 | significant       |
|               |                                 | discrepancies in  |
|               |                                 | the rate of       |
|               |                                 | long-term         |
|               |                                 | suspensions and   |
|               |                                 | expulsions of     |
|               |                                 | students with     |
|               |                                 | disabilities      |
|               |                                 | identified in the |
|               |                                 | FFY 2005 APR.     |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | In reporting on   |
|               |                                 | this indicator in |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|               |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009, the State   |
|               |                                 | must describe the |
|               |                                 | results of the    |
|               |                                 | State's           |
|               |                                 | examination of    |
|               |                                 | data from FFY     |
|               |                                 | 2007 (2007-2008). |
|               |                                 | In addition, the  |
|               |                                 | State must        |
|               |                                 | describe the      |
|               |                                 | review, and if    |
|               |                                 | appropriate,      |
|               |                                 | revision, of      |
|               |                                 | policies,         |
|               |                                 | procedures, and   |
|               |                                 | practices         |
|               |                                 | relating to the   |
|               |                                 | development and   |
|               |                                 | implementation of |
|               |                                 | IEPs, the use of  |
|               |                                 | positive          |
|               |                                 | behavioral        |
|               |                                 | interventions and |
|               |                                 | supports, and     |
|               |                                 | procedural        |
|               |                                 | safeguards to     |
|               |                                 | ensure compliance |
|               |                                 | with the IDEA for |
|               |                                 | the LEAs          |
|               |                                 | identified with   |
|               |                                 | significant       |
|               |                                 | discrepancies in  |
|               |                                 | FFY 2006, as      |
|               |                                 | required by 34    |
|               |                                 | CFR §300.170(b).  |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | OSEP looks        |
|               |                                 | forward to the    |
|               |                                 | State's data      |
|               |                                 | demonstrating     |
|               |                                 | improvement in    |
|               |                                 | performance in    |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|               |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009.             |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 4\. Rates of  | Reporting on Indicator 4B was   |                   |
| suspension    | not required for the FFY 2006   |                   |
| and           | APR.                            |                   |
| expulsion:    |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| B. Percent of |                                 |                   |
| districts     |                                 |                   |
| identified by |                                 |                   |
| the State as  |                                 |                   |
| having a      |                                 |                   |
| significant   |                                 |                   |
| discrepancy   |                                 |                   |
| in the rates  |                                 |                   |
| of            |                                 |                   |
| suspensions   |                                 |                   |
| and           |                                 |                   |
| expulsions of |                                 |                   |
| greater than  |                                 |                   |
| 10 days in a  |                                 |                   |
| school year   |                                 |                   |
| of children   |                                 |                   |
| with          |                                 |                   |
| disabilities  |                                 |                   |
| by race and   |                                 |                   |
| ethnicity.    |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 5\. Percent   | The State revised the targets   | OSEP appreciates  |
| of children   | for Indicator 5C and one        | the State's       |
| with IEPs     | improvement activity for        | efforts to        |
| aged 6        | Indicator 5 in its SPP and OSEP | improve           |
| through 21:   | accepts those revisions.        | performance for   |
|               |                                 | 5A and 5B and     |
| A. Removed    | The State's reported data for   | looks forward to  |
| from regular  | this indicator are:             | the State's data  |
| class less    |                                 | demonstrating     |
| than 21% of   |   --------------                | improvement in    |
| the day;      | -- --------- -------- --------- | performance for   |
|               |                                 | 5C in the FFY     |
| B. Removed    |     FFY 2005  FFY 2006 FFY 2006 | 2007 APR, due     |
| from regular  |                                 | February 1, 2009. |
| class greater |       Data      Data     Target |                   |
| than 60% of   |                                 |                   |
| the day; or   |   A. Removed f                  |                   |
|               | rom  67.05%    74.06%   68.05%. |                   |
| C. Served in  |   regul                         |                   |
| public or     | ar class                        |                   |
| private       |   less                          |                   |
| separate      | than 21% of                     |                   |
| schools,      |   the d                         |                   |
| residential   | ay.                             |                   |
| placements,   |                                 |                   |
| or homebound  |   B. Removed                    |                   |
| or hospital   | from   6.61%     6.12%   6.51%. |                   |
| placements.   |   regul                         |                   |
|               | ar class                        |                   |
| \[Results     |   great                         |                   |
| Indicator\]   | er than 60%                     |                   |
|               |   of th                         |                   |
|               | e day.                          |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |   C. Served                     |                   |
|               | in     2.77%     2.75%    1.77% |                   |
|               |   publi                         |                   |
|               | c or                            |                   |
|               |   priva                         |                   |
|               | te separate                     |                   |
|               |   schoo                         |                   |
|               | ls,                             |                   |
|               |   resid                         |                   |
|               | ential                          |                   |
|               |   place                         |                   |
|               | ments, or                       |                   |
|               |   homeb                         |                   |
|               | ound or                         |                   |
|               |   hospi                         |                   |
|               | tal                             |                   |
|               |   place                         |                   |
|               | ments.                          |                   |
|               |   --------------                |                   |
|               | -- --------- -------- --------- |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               | These data represent progress   |                   |
|               | from the FFY 2005 data.         |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               | The State met its FFY 2006      |                   |
|               | targets for Indicators 5A and   |                   |
|               | 5B and did not meet its target  |                   |
|               | for Indicator 5C.               |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 6\. Percent   | Reporting on Indicator 6 was    |                   |
| of preschool  | not required for the FFY 2006   |                   |
| children with | APR.                            |                   |
| IEPs who      |                                 |                   |
| received      |                                 |                   |
| special       |                                 |                   |
| education and |                                 |                   |
| related       |                                 |                   |
| services in   |                                 |                   |
| settings with |                                 |                   |
| typically     |                                 |                   |
| developing    |                                 |                   |
| peers (i.e.,  |                                 |                   |
| early         |                                 |                   |
| childhood     |                                 |                   |
| settings,     |                                 |                   |
| home, and     |                                 |                   |
| part-time     |                                 |                   |
| early         |                                 |                   |
| childh        |                                 |                   |
| ood/part-time |                                 |                   |
| early         |                                 |                   |
| childhood     |                                 |                   |
| special       |                                 |                   |
| education     |                                 |                   |
| settings).    |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 7\. Percent   | The State provided improvement  | OSEP's June 15,   |
| of preschool  | activities for this indicator   | 2007 FFY 2005     |
| children with | covering the remaining years of | SPP/APR response  |
| IEPs who      | the SPP.                        | table required    |
| demonstrate   |                                 | the State to      |
| improved:     | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | include in the    |
|               | progress data for this          | FFY 2006 APR, due |
| A.  Positive  | indicator are:                  | February 1, 2008, |
|     soc       |                                 | the State's       |
| ial-emotional | <table>                         | definition of     |
|     skills    | <colgroup>                      | "comparable to    |
|               | <col style="width: 58%" />      | same aged peers." |
|    (including | <col style="width: 13%" />      | The State         |
|     social    | <col style="width: 13%" />      | provided the      |
|     re        | <col style="width: 13%" />      | required          |
| lationships); | </colgroup>                     | definition in its |
|               | <thead>                         | SPP.              |
| B.            | <tr class="header">             |                   |
|   Acquisition | <th><p>06-07 Preschool          | The State also    |
|     and use   | Outcome</p>                     | reported the      |
|     of        | <p>Progress Data</p></th>       | required progress |
|     knowledge | <th><blockquote>                | data and          |
|     and       | <p>Social</p>                   | improvement       |
|     skills    | <p>Emotional</p>                | activities in its |
|               | </blockquote></th>              | SPP. The State    |
|    (including | <th><blockquote>                | must provide      |
|     early     | <p>Knowledge</p>                | progress data     |
|     language/ | <p>&amp; Skills</p>             | with the FFY 2007 |
|               | </blockquote></th>              | APR, due February |
| communication | <th><blockquote>                | 1, 2009, and      |
|     and early | <p>Appropriate Behavior</p>     | baseline data and |
|               | </blockquote></th>              | targets, with the |
|    literacy); | </tr>                           | FFY 2008 APR, due |
|     and       | </thead>                        | February 1, 2010. |
|               | <tbody>                         |                   |
| C.  Use of    | <tr class="odd">                |                   |
|               | <td>a. % of preschoolers who    |                   |
|   appropriate | did not improve                 |                   |
|     behaviors | functioning.</td>               |                   |
|     to meet   | <td>1.3%</td>                   |                   |
|     their     | <td>3.3%</td>                   |                   |
|     needs.    | <td>1.9%</td>                   |                   |
|               | </tr>                           |                   |
| \[Results     | <tr class="even">               |                   |
| Indicator;    | <td>b. % of preschoolers who    |                   |
| New\]         | improved but not sufficient     |                   |
|               | to move nearer to functioning   |                   |
|               | comparable to same-aged         |                   |
|               | peers.</td>                     |                   |
|               | <td>4.3%</td>                   |                   |
|               | <td>7.2%</td>                   |                   |
|               | <td>4.6%</td>                   |                   |
|               | </tr>                           |                   |
|               | <tr class="odd">                |                   |
|               | <td>c. % of preschoolers who    |                   |
|               | improved to a level nearer to   |                   |
|               | same-aged peers but did not     |                   |
|               | reach it.</td>                  |                   |
|               | <td>12.9%</td>                  |                   |
|               | <td>25.2%</td>                  |                   |
|               | <td>9.2%</td>                   |                   |
|               | </tr>                           |                   |
|               | <tr class="even">               |                   |
|               | <td>d. % of preschoolers who    |                   |
|               | improved functioning to reach   |                   |
|               | a level comparable to           |                   |
|               | same-aged peers.</td>           |                   |
|               | <td>26%</td>                    |                   |
|               | <td>33.8%</td>                  |                   |
|               | <td>19.8%</td>                  |                   |
|               | </tr>                           |                   |
|               | <tr class="odd">                |                   |
|               | <td>e. % of preschoolers who    |                   |
|               | maintained functioning at a     |                   |
|               | level comparable to same-aged   |                   |
|               | peers.</td>                     |                   |
|               | <td>55.5%</td>                  |                   |
|               | <td>30.5%</td>                  |                   |
|               | <td>64.5%</td>                  |                   |
|               | </tr>                           |                   |
|               | </tbody>                        |                   |
|               | </table>                        |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 8\. Percent   | The State revised an            | OSEP's June 15,   |
| of parents    | improvement activity for this   | 2007 FFY 2005     |
| with a child  | indicator in its SPP and OSEP   | SPP/APR response  |
| receiving     | accepts that revision.          | table required    |
| special       |                                 | the State to      |
| education     | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | include in the    |
| services who  | data for this indicator are     | FFY 2006 APR, due |
| report that   | 86.80%. These data represent    | February 1, 2008, |
| schools       | slippage from the FFY 2005 data | a revised         |
| facilitated   | of 88.1%. The State did not     | sampling plan.    |
| parent        | meet its FFY 2006 target of     |                   |
| involvement   | 88.3%.                          | The State         |
| as a means of |                                 | submitted a       |
| improving     |                                 | revised sampling  |
| services and  |                                 | plan for this     |
| results for   |                                 | indicator in its  |
| children with |                                 | FFY 2006 APR. An  |
| disabilities. |                                 | evaluation of the |
|               |                                 | sampling plan     |
| \[Results     |                                 | indicated that it |
| Indicator\]   |                                 | will yield valid  |
|               |                                 | and reliable data |
|               |                                 | for this          |
|               |                                 | indicator.        |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | In its            |
|               |                                 | description of    |
|               |                                 | its FFY 2006      |
|               |                                 | data, the State   |
|               |                                 | did not address   |
|               |                                 | whether the       |
|               |                                 | response group    |
|               |                                 | was               |
|               |                                 | representative of |
|               |                                 | the population.   |
|               |                                 | In the FFY 2007   |
|               |                                 | APR, due February |
|               |                                 | 1, 2009, the      |
|               |                                 | State must        |
|               |                                 | address whether   |
|               |                                 | its FFY 2007 data |
|               |                                 | are               |
|               |                                 | representative.   |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | OSEP looks        |
|               |                                 | forward to the    |
|               |                                 | State's data      |
|               |                                 | demonstrating     |
|               |                                 | improvement in    |
|               |                                 | performance in    |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|               |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009.             |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 9\. Percent   | The State revised the baseline  | OSEP's June 15,   |
| of districts  | and targets to reflect the      | 2007 FFY 2005     |
| with          | percent of districts with       | SPP/APR response  |
| dis           | disproportionate representation | table required    |
| proportionate | of racial and ethnic groups in  | the State, in its |
| r             | special education and related   | FFY 2006 APR, due |
| epresentation | services that is the result of  | February 1, 2008  |
| of racial and | inappropriate identification in | to: (1) refer to  |
| ethnic groups | its SPP and OSEP accepts those  | disproportionate  |
| in special    | revisions.                      | representation of |
| education and |                                 | racial and ethnic |
| related       | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | groups in special |
| services that | data for this indicator are 0%. | education and     |
| is the result | These data represent progress   | related services  |
| of            | from the revised FFY 2005 data  | that is the       |
| inappropriate | of 2%. The State met its FFY    | result of         |
| id            | 2006 target of 0%.              | inappropriate     |
| entification. |                                 | identification,   |
|               | The State reported the actual   | and not to        |
| \[Compliance  | numbers of districts determined | significant       |
| Indicator\]   | in FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 to     | di                |
|               | have disproportionate           | sproportionality, |
|               | representation of racial and    | in reporting on   |
|               | ethnic groups in special        | this indicator;   |
|               | education and related services  | and (2) review    |
|               | that was the result of          | data and          |
|               | inappropriate identification.   | information for   |
|               |                                 | all racial and    |
|               | The State reported that two of  | ethnic groups     |
|               | two LEAs identified in FFY 2005 | present in the    |
|               | as having disproportionate      | State, including  |
|               | representation of racial or     | a review of data  |
|               | ethnic groups in special        | at the LEA level, |
|               | education and related services  | in determining if |
|               | that was the result of          | there was         |
|               | inappropriate identification    | disproportionate  |
|               | are in compliance with the      | representation of |
|               | requirements of 34 CFR          | racial and ethnic |
|               | §§300.111, 300.201 and 300.301  | groups in special |
|               | through 300.311.                | education and     |
|               |                                 | related services  |
|               |                                 | that was the      |
|               |                                 | result of         |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification,   |
|               |                                 | for both FFY 2005 |
|               |                                 | and FFY 2006. The |
|               |                                 | State referred to |
|               |                                 | the               |
|               |                                 | disproportionate  |
|               |                                 | representation of |
|               |                                 | racial and ethnic |
|               |                                 | groups in special |
|               |                                 | education and     |
|               |                                 | related services  |
|               |                                 | that is the       |
|               |                                 | result of         |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification,   |
|               |                                 | and not to        |
|               |                                 | significant       |
|               |                                 | di                |
|               |                                 | sproportionality, |
|               |                                 | in reporting on   |
|               |                                 | this indicator in |
|               |                                 | its FFY 2006 APR. |
|               |                                 | The State also    |
|               |                                 | clarified that it |
|               |                                 | examined data and |
|               |                                 | information for   |
|               |                                 | all racial and    |
|               |                                 | ethnic groups     |
|               |                                 | present in the    |
|               |                                 | State in          |
|               |                                 | determining if    |
|               |                                 | there was         |
|               |                                 | disproportionate  |
|               |                                 | representation of |
|               |                                 | racial and ethnic |
|               |                                 | groups in special |
|               |                                 | education and     |
|               |                                 | related services  |
|               |                                 | that was the      |
|               |                                 | result of         |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification    |
|               |                                 | for FFY 2005 and  |
|               |                                 | FFY 2006.         |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | The State         |
|               |                                 | reported that     |
|               |                                 | noncompliance     |
|               |                                 | identified in FFY |
|               |                                 | 2005 with the     |
|               |                                 | requirements in   |
|               |                                 | 34 CFR §§300.173, |
|               |                                 | 300.111, 300.201, |
|               |                                 | and 300.301       |
|               |                                 | through 300.311   |
|               |                                 | was corrected in  |
|               |                                 | a timely manner.  |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | OSEP appreciates  |
|               |                                 | the State's       |
|               |                                 | efforts regarding |
|               |                                 | this indicator.   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 10\. Percent  | The State revised the baseline  | OSEP's June 15,   |
| of districts  | for this indicator in its SPP   | 2007 FFY 2005     |
| with          | and OSEP accepts that revision. | SPP/APR response  |
| dis           |                                 | table required    |
| proportionate | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | the State, in its |
| r             | data for this indicator are     | FFY 2006 APR, due |
| epresentation | 1.53%. These data represent     | February 1, 2008, |
| of racial and | progress from the revised FFY   | to: (1) refer to  |
| ethnic groups | 2005 data of 11%. The State did | the               |
| in specific   | not meet its FFY 2006 target of | disproportionate  |
| disability    | 0%.                             | representation of |
| categories    |                                 | racial and ethnic |
| that is the   | The State reported the actual   | groups in         |
| result of     | numbers of districts determined | specific          |
| inappropriate | in FFY 2005 and FFY 2006 to     | disability        |
| id            | have disproportionate           | categories that   |
| entification. | representation of racial and    | is the result of  |
|               | ethnic groups in specific       | inappropriate     |
| \[Compliance  | disability categories that was  | identification,   |
| Indicator\]   | the result of inappropriate     | and not to        |
|               | identification.                 | significant       |
|               |                                 | di                |
|               | The State reported that 14 of   | sproportionality, |
|               | 14 LEAs identified in FFY 2005  | in reporting on   |
|               | as having disproportionate      | this indicator;   |
|               | representation of racial or     | and (2) review    |
|               | ethnic groups in specific       | data and          |
|               | disability categories that was  | information for   |
|               | the result of inappropriate     | all racial and    |
|               | identification are in           | ethnic groups     |
|               | compliance with the             | present in the    |
|               | requirements of 34 CFR          | State, including  |
|               | §§300.111, 300.201 and 300.301  | a review of data  |
|               | through 300.311.                | at the LEA level, |
|               |                                 | in determining if |
|               |                                 | there was         |
|               |                                 | disproportionate  |
|               |                                 | representation of |
|               |                                 | racial and ethnic |
|               |                                 | groups in         |
|               |                                 | specific          |
|               |                                 | disability        |
|               |                                 | categories that   |
|               |                                 | is the result of  |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification,   |
|               |                                 | for both FFY 2005 |
|               |                                 | and FFY 2006. The |
|               |                                 | State referred to |
|               |                                 | the               |
|               |                                 | disproportionate  |
|               |                                 | representation of |
|               |                                 | racial and ethnic |
|               |                                 | groups in         |
|               |                                 | specific          |
|               |                                 | disability        |
|               |                                 | categories that   |
|               |                                 | is the result of  |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification,   |
|               |                                 | and not to        |
|               |                                 | significant       |
|               |                                 | di                |
|               |                                 | sproportionality, |
|               |                                 | in reporting on   |
|               |                                 | this indicator in |
|               |                                 | its FFY 2006 APR. |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | The State         |
|               |                                 | reported that it  |
|               |                                 | examined data and |
|               |                                 | information for   |
|               |                                 | all racial and    |
|               |                                 | ethnic groups     |
|               |                                 | present in the    |
|               |                                 | State in          |
|               |                                 | determining if    |
|               |                                 | there was         |
|               |                                 | disproportionate  |
|               |                                 | representation of |
|               |                                 | racial and ethnic |
|               |                                 | groups in         |
|               |                                 | specific          |
|               |                                 | disability        |
|               |                                 | categories that   |
|               |                                 | is the result of  |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification    |
|               |                                 | for both FFY 2005 |
|               |                                 | and FFY 2006.     |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | The State         |
|               |                                 | reported that     |
|               |                                 | noncompliance     |
|               |                                 | identified in FFY |
|               |                                 | 2005 with the     |
|               |                                 | requirements of   |
|               |                                 | 34 CFR §§300.173, |
|               |                                 | 300.111, 300.201, |
|               |                                 | and 300.301       |
|               |                                 | through 300.311   |
|               |                                 | was corrected in  |
|               |                                 | a timely manner.  |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | OSEP appreciates  |
|               |                                 | the State's       |
|               |                                 | efforts and looks |
|               |                                 | forward to        |
|               |                                 | reviewing data in |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|               |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009, that        |
|               |                                 | demonstrate that  |
|               |                                 | the State has in  |
|               |                                 | effect policies   |
|               |                                 | and procedures as |
|               |                                 | required by 34    |
|               |                                 | CFR §300.173 and  |
|               |                                 | that the LEAs     |
|               |                                 | identified in FFY |
|               |                                 | 2006 as having    |
|               |                                 | disproportionate  |
|               |                                 | representation of |
|               |                                 | racial or ethnic  |
|               |                                 | groups in         |
|               |                                 | specific          |
|               |                                 | disability        |
|               |                                 | categories that   |
|               |                                 | is the result of  |
|               |                                 | inappropriate     |
|               |                                 | identification    |
|               |                                 | are in compliance |
|               |                                 | with the          |
|               |                                 | requirements of   |
|               |                                 | 34 CFR §§300.111, |
|               |                                 | 300.201 and       |
|               |                                 | 300.301 through   |
|               |                                 | 300.311.          |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 11\. Percent  | The State revised the language  | > OSEP's June 15, |
| of children   | of its targets for this         | > 2007 FFY 2005   |
| with parental | indicator in its SPP and OSEP   | > SPP/APR         |
| consent to    | accepts those revisions.        | > response table  |
| evaluate, who |                                 | > required the    |
| were          | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | > State to        |
| evaluated     | data for this indicator are     | > provide in the  |
| within 60     | 84%. These data represent       | > FFY 2006 APR,   |
| days (or      | progress from the FFY 2005 data | > due February 1, |
| State         | of 82%. The State did not meet  | > 2008, the       |
| established   | its FFY 2006 target of 100%.    | > reasons for     |
| timeline).    |                                 | > delays (which   |
|               | The State reported that 11 of   | > the State       |
| \[Compliance  | 48 LEAs that were not in        | > refers to as    |
| Indicator\]   | compliance with this indicator  | > reasons for     |
|               | in FFY 2005 "met the target for | > school district |
|               | FFY 2006." For the uncorrected  | > error). The     |
|               | noncompliance in the remaining  | > State provided  |
|               | LEAs, the State reported that   | > the reasons for |
|               | it had improved its data        | > delays in       |
|               | collection to include all LEAs  | > meeting the     |
|               | in the State throughout the     | > timely          |
|               | year, and that the State will   | > evaluations     |
|               | be able to provide immediate    | > requirements in |
|               | technical assistance when the   | > its FFY 2006    |
|               | data indicate noncompliance.    | > APR, due        |
|               |                                 | > February 1,     |
|               |                                 | > 2008.           |
|               |                                 | >                 |
|               |                                 | > The State       |
|               |                                 | > reported that   |
|               |                                 | > noncompliance   |
|               |                                 | > identified in   |
|               |                                 | > FFY 2005 with   |
|               |                                 | > the timely      |
|               |                                 | > evaluations     |
|               |                                 | > requirements in |
|               |                                 | > 34 CFR          |
|               |                                 | > §300.301(c)(1)  |
|               |                                 | > was partially   |
|               |                                 | > corrected. The  |
|               |                                 | > State must      |
|               |                                 | > demonstrate, in |
|               |                                 | > the FFY 2007    |
|               |                                 | > APR, due        |
|               |                                 | > February 1,     |
|               |                                 | > 2009, that the  |
|               |                                 | > uncorrected     |
|               |                                 | > noncompliance   |
|               |                                 | > was corrected.  |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | The State must    |
|               |                                 | review its        |
|               |                                 | improvement       |
|               |                                 | activities and    |
|               |                                 | revise them, if   |
|               |                                 | appropriate, to   |
|               |                                 | ensure they will  |
|               |                                 | enable the State  |
|               |                                 | to provide data   |
|               |                                 | in the FFY 2007   |
|               |                                 | APR, due February |
|               |                                 | 1, 2009,          |
|               |                                 | demonstrating     |
|               |                                 | that the State is |
|               |                                 | in compliance     |
|               |                                 | with the timely   |
|               |                                 | evaluations       |
|               |                                 | requirements in   |
|               |                                 | 34 CFR            |
|               |                                 | §300.301(c)(1),   |
|               |                                 | including         |
|               |                                 | reporting         |
|               |                                 | correction of the |
|               |                                 | noncompliance     |
|               |                                 | identified in the |
|               |                                 | FFY 2006 APR.     |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 12. Percent   | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | > OSEP's June 15, |
|     of        | data for this indicator are     | > 2007 FFY 2005   |
|     children  | 94.07%. These data represent    | > SPP/APR         |
|     referred  | progress from the FFY 2005 data | > response table  |
|     by Part C | of 76.3%. The State did not     | > required the    |
|     prior to  | meet its FFY 2006 target of     | > State to        |
|     age 3,    | 100%.                           | > include in the  |
|     who are   |                                 | > FFY 2006 APR,   |
|     found     | The State reported that 32 of   | > due February 1, |
|     eligible  | 37 LEAs that were not in        | > 2008, data      |
|     for Part  | compliance in FFY 2005 related  | > demonstrating   |
|     B, and    | to this indicator are no longer | > correction of   |
|     who have  | identified as noncompliant. For | > the             |
|     an IEP    | the uncorrected noncompliance,  | > noncompliance   |
|     developed | the State reported that it will | > with the early  |
|     and       | continue to mandate rigorous    | > childhood       |
|               | improvement activities for      | > transition      |
|   implemented | those LEAs, analyze data on     | > requirements in |
|     by their  | preschool transition at the LEA | > 34 CFR          |
|     third     | level, and provide technical    | > §300.124(b)     |
|               | assistance to LEAs when the     | > identified in   |
|    birthdays. | data indicate noncompliance.    | > the FFY 2004    |
|               |                                 | > SPP and in the  |
| \[Compliance  |                                 | > FFY 2005 APR.   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 | > The State       |
|               |                                 | > reported that   |
|               |                                 | > rigorous        |
|               |                                 | > improvement     |
|               |                                 | > activities were |
|               |                                 | > mandated to     |
|               |                                 | > correct prior   |
|               |                                 | > noncompliance   |
|               |                                 | > identified in   |
|               |                                 | > the FFY 2004    |
|               |                                 | > SPP and the FFY |
|               |                                 | > 2005 APR, once  |
|               |                                 | > it determined   |
|               |                                 | > that the target |
|               |                                 | > was not met.    |
|               |                                 | > The State       |
|               |                                 | > reported that   |
|               |                                 | > the 2005-06     |
|               |                                 | > reporting       |
|               |                                 | > period was the  |
|               |                                 | > first year that |
|               |                                 | > individual LEA  |
|               |                                 | > data could be   |
|               |                                 | > analyzed,       |
|               |                                 | > because prior   |
|               |                                 | > reporting       |
|               |                                 | > procedures only |
|               |                                 | > generated State |
|               |                                 | > totals. The     |
|               |                                 | > State reported  |
|               |                                 | > that            |
|               |                                 | > noncompliance   |
|               |                                 | > identified in   |
|               |                                 | > FFY 2005 with   |
|               |                                 | > the early       |
|               |                                 | > childhood       |
|               |                                 | > transition      |
|               |                                 | > requirements in |
|               |                                 | > 34 CFR          |
|               |                                 | > §300.124(b),    |
|               |                                 | > was partially   |
|               |                                 | > corrected. The  |
|               |                                 | > State must      |
|               |                                 | > demonstrate, in |
|               |                                 | > the FFY 2007    |
|               |                                 | > APR, due        |
|               |                                 | > February 1,     |
|               |                                 | > 2009, that the  |
|               |                                 | > uncorrected     |
|               |                                 | > noncompliance   |
|               |                                 | > identified in   |
|               |                                 | > FFY 2005 was    |
|               |                                 | > corrected.      |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | The State must    |
|               |                                 | review its        |
|               |                                 | improvement       |
|               |                                 | activities and    |
|               |                                 | revise them, if   |
|               |                                 | appropriate, to   |
|               |                                 | ensure they will  |
|               |                                 | enable the State  |
|               |                                 | to demonstrate in |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|               |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009, that the    |
|               |                                 | State is in       |
|               |                                 | compliance with   |
|               |                                 | the requirements  |
|               |                                 | in 34 CFR         |
|               |                                 | §300.124(b),      |
|               |                                 | including         |
|               |                                 | reporting         |
|               |                                 | correction of the |
|               |                                 | noncompliance     |
|               |                                 | identified in the |
|               |                                 | FFY 2006 APR.     |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 13\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | The State         |
| of youth aged | data for this indicator are     | reported under    |
| 16 and above  | 95.44%. These data represent    | Indicator 15 that |
| with an IEP   | progress from the FFY 2005 data | noncompliance     |
| that includes | of 91.62%.                      | identified in FFY |
| coordinated,  |                                 | 2005 with the     |
| measurable,   | The State did not meet its FFY  | secondary         |
| annual IEP    | 2006 target of 100%.            | transition        |
| goals and     |                                 | requirements in   |
| transition    | Under Indicator 15, the State   | 34 CFR            |
| services that | reported that four of four      | §300.320(b), was  |
| will          | findings identified in FFY 2005 | corrected in a    |
| reasonably    | related to this indicator were  | timely manner.    |
| enable the    | corrected in a timely manner.   |                   |
| student to    |                                 | OSEP appreciates  |
| meet the      |                                 | the State's       |
| p             |                                 | efforts and looks |
| ost-secondary |                                 | forward to        |
| goals.        |                                 | reviewing in the  |
|               |                                 | FFY 2007 APR, due |
| \[Compliance  |                                 | February 1, 2009, |
| Indicator\]   |                                 | the State's data  |
|               |                                 | demonstrating     |
|               |                                 | that it is in     |
|               |                                 | compliance with   |
|               |                                 | the secondary     |
|               |                                 | transition        |
|               |                                 | requirements in   |
|               |                                 | 34 CFR            |
|               |                                 | §300.320(b),      |
|               |                                 | including         |
|               |                                 | reporting         |
|               |                                 | correction of the |
|               |                                 | noncompliance     |
|               |                                 | identified in the |
|               |                                 | FFY 2006 APR.     |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 14\. Percent  | The State provided baseline     | OSEP's June 15,   |
| of youth who  | data, targets and improvement   | 2007 FFY 2005     |
| had IEPs, are | activities for this indicator   | SPP/APR response  |
| no longer in  | in its SPP and OSEP accepts the | table required    |
| secondary     | SPP for this indicator.         | the State to      |
| school and    |                                 | provide the       |
| who have been | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | definitions for   |
| competitively | baseline data for this          | competitive       |
| employed,     | indicator are 79.5%.            | employment and    |
| enrolled in   |                                 | postsecondary     |
| some type of  |                                 | school with its   |
| postsecondary |                                 | February 1, 2008  |
| school, or    |                                 | FFY 2006 APR      |
| both, within  |                                 | submission. The   |
| one year of   |                                 | State provided    |
| leaving high  |                                 | the required      |
| school.       |                                 | definitions.      |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 | OSEP looks        |
| Indicator;    |                                 | forward to        |
| New\]         |                                 | reviewing the     |
|               |                                 | State's data in   |
|               |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
|               |                                 | due February 1,   |
|               |                                 | 2009.             |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 15\. General  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| supervision   | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| system        | 99%. These data represent       | efforts and looks |
| (including    | progress from the FFY 2005 data | forward to        |
| monitoring,   | of 98.1%. The State did not     | reviewing in the  |
| complaints,   | meet its FFY 2006 target of     | FFY 2007 APR, due |
| hearings,     | 100%.                           | February 1, 2009, |
| etc.)         |                                 | the State's data  |
| identifies    | The State reported that 123 of  | demonstrating     |
| and corrects  | 124 findings of noncompliance   | that the State    |
| noncompliance | identified in FFY 2005 were     | timely corrected  |
| as soon as    | corrected in a timely manner,   | noncompliance     |
| possible but  | and that the remaining finding  | identified in FFY |
| in no case    | was corrected within two months | 2006 (2006-2007)  |
| later than    | of the one-year timeline.       | under this        |
| one year from |                                 | indicator in      |
| id            |                                 | accordance with   |
| entification. |                                 | 20 U.S.C.         |
|               |                                 | 1232d(b)(3)(E)    |
| \[Compliance  |                                 | and 34 CFR        |
| Indicator\]   |                                 | §§300.149 and     |
|               |                                 | 300.600.          |
|               |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 | In addition, in   |
|               |                                 | responding to     |
|               |                                 | Indicators 10,    |
|               |                                 | 11, 12, and 13,   |
|               |                                 | the State must    |
|               |                                 | specifically      |
|               |                                 | identify and      |
|               |                                 | address the       |
|               |                                 | noncompliance     |
|               |                                 | identified in     |
|               |                                 | this table under  |
|               |                                 | those indicators. |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 16\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| of signed     | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| written       | 100%. These data remain         | efforts in        |
| complaints    | unchanged from the FFY 2005     | achieving         |
| with reports  | data of 100%. The State met its | compliance with   |
| issued that   | FFY 2006 target of 100%.        | the timely        |
| were resolved |                                 | complaint         |
| within 60-day |                                 | resolution        |
| timeline or a |                                 | requirements in   |
| timeline      |                                 | 34 CFR §300.152.  |
| extended for  |                                 |                   |
| exceptional   |                                 |                   |
| circumstances |                                 |                   |
| with respect  |                                 |                   |
| to a          |                                 |                   |
| particular    |                                 |                   |
| complaint.    |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Compliance  |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 17\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| of fully      | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| adjudicated   | 100%. These data are based on   | efforts in        |
| due process   | four hearings. These data       | achieving         |
| hearing       | remain unchanged from the FFY   | compliance with   |
| requests that | 2005 data of 100%. The State    | the timely due    |
| were fully    | met its FFY 2006 target of      | process hearing   |
| adjudicated   | 100%.                           | resolution        |
| within the    |                                 | requirements in   |
| 45-day        |                                 | 34 CFR §300.515.  |
| timeline or a |                                 |                   |
| timeline that |                                 |                   |
| is properly   |                                 |                   |
| extended by   |                                 |                   |
| the hearing   |                                 |                   |
| officer at    |                                 |                   |
| the request   |                                 |                   |
| of either     |                                 |                   |
| party.        |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Compliance  |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 18\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP looks        |
| of hearing    | data for this indicator are     | forward to the    |
| requests that | 17.74%.                         | State's data      |
| went to       |                                 | demonstrating     |
| resolution    | The State did not meet its FFY  | improvement in    |
| sessions that | 2006 target of 47.5%.           | performance in    |
| were resolved |                                 | the FFY 2007 APR, |
| through       |                                 | due February 1,   |
| resolution    |                                 | 2009.             |
| session       |                                 |                   |
| settlement    |                                 |                   |
| agreements.   |                                 |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 19\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| of mediations | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| held that     | 78.72%.                         | efforts to        |
| resulted in   |                                 | improve           |
| mediation     | The State met its FFY 2006      | performance.      |
| agreements.   | target of 65%.                  |                   |
|               |                                 |                   |
| \[Results     |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+
| 20\. State    | The State's FFY 2006 reported   | OSEP appreciates  |
| reported data | data for this indicator are     | the State's       |
| (618 and      | 100%.                           | efforts in        |
| State         |                                 | achieving         |
| Performance   | The State met its FFY 2006      | compliance with   |
| Plan and      | target of 100%.                 | the timely and    |
| Annual        |                                 | accurate data     |
| Performance   |                                 | requirements in   |
| Report) are   |                                 | IDEA sections 616 |
| timely and    |                                 | and 618 and 34    |
| accurate.     |                                 | CFR §§76.720 and  |
|               |                                 | 300.601(b).       |
| \[Compliance  |                                 |                   |
| Indicator\]   |                                 |                   |
+---------------+---------------------------------+-------------------+

[^1]: OSEP notes that the targets that the State has established for
    Indicators 1, 3C, 5A and 14 are stated as a percentage increase, and
    in the case of Indicators 2 and 5B and 5C, a percentage decrease,
    from the prior year's performance. It is OSEP's understanding that
    the State intends that each of these targets means that the State
    will be able to report improvement in performance over the six year
    period of the SPP. The State must ensure that, notwithstanding the
    performance level the State reports for these indicators in the FFY
    2009 APR, due February 1, 2011, its targets in the State's FFY 2010
    APR, due February 1, 2012, reflect improvement from the State's FFY
    2004 baseline for Indicators 1, 2, 3C and 5, and the FFY 2006
    baseline for Indicator 14.