JUNE 5, 2002

Ms. Patricia Hamamoto

Superintendent of Education

Hawaii Department of Education

1390 Miller Street, #307

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dr. Bruce S. Anderson

Director

Hawaii Department of Health

1250 Punchbowl Street\
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Dear Ms. Hamamoto and Dr. Anderson:

The U.S. Department of Education\'s Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) conducted a review in Hawaii from October 16 - 24, 2000 and the
week of February 12, 2001 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 children with
disabilities and their families through a working partnership among
OSEP, the Hawaii Department of Education (HDE), the Hawaii Department of
Health (HDOH), and parents and advocates in Hawaii.

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

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

The enclosed Report addresses strengths noted in the State, areas that
require corrective action because they represent noncompliance with the
requirements of the IDEA, and technical assistance regarding areas that
need improvement for identification of best practices. Enclosed you will
find an Executive Summary of the Report, an Introduction including
background information, and a description of issues and findings.

HDE and HDOH have indicated that this Report will be shared with members
of the Steering Committee, the State Interagency Coordinating Council
and the IDEA State Advisory Panel. OSEP will work with your Steering
Committee to develop corrective actions and improvement strategies to
ensure that the many areas of noncompliance are adequately addressed
through Hawaii's Improvement Plan.

OSEP is concerned about the serious and systemic nature of the findings
from the Part B monitoring that are included in this Report, many of
which are also addressed under the Felix Consent Decree and has
significant concerns about Hawaii's ability to resolve these issues.

[]{.mark}

This Report reflects OSEP's first monitoring review of Hawaii's Part C
system. The report documents strengths of the program and suggestions to
improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities and their
families. In addition, this Report documents significant areas of
noncompliance that must be addressed by HDOH through an Improvement
Plan.

Thank you for the assistance and cooperation provided by your staffs
during our review. Throughout the course of the review, Ms. Debra Farmer
and Ms. Sue Brown were responsive to OSEP\'s requests for information,
and provided access to necessary documentation that enabled OSEP staff
to work in partnership with the Steering Committee to better understand
the State\'s systems for implementing the IDEA. An extraordinary effort
was made by State staff to arrange the public input process during the
Validation Planning week and, as a result of their efforts, OSEP
obtained information from a large number of parents (including
underrepresented groups), advocates, service providers, school and
agency personnel, agency administrators, and special education
administrators. OSEP would also like to recognize the efforts that have
taken place in Hawaii to improve results for children with disabilities
and the strong commitment of State staff to continue these efforts.

Thank you for your continued efforts toward the goal of achieving better
results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities in
Hawaii. 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. Debra Farmer

Ms. Sue Brown

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

**[Hawaii 2001]{.underline}**

The attached report contains the results of the first two steps
(Validation Planning and Validation Data Collection) in the Office of
Special Education Program's (OSEP) Continuous Improvement Monitoring of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Parts B and C,
in the State of Hawaii from October 16 through 24, 2000 and the week of
February 12, 2001. The process is designed to focus resources on
improving results for infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities
and their families through enhanced partnerships between the State
agencies, OSEP, parents, and advocates. The Validation Planning phase of
the monitoring process included a series of public input meetings with
guided discussions around core areas of IDEA and the organization of the
Steering Committees that provided further comments on the status of the
implementation of IDEA. As part of the public input process, OSEP and
the State made efforts to include multi-cultural and underrepresented
populations. The Validation Data Collection phase included interviews
with parents, agency administrators, district program and school
administrators, service providers, teachers and service coordinators,
and reviews of children's records. Information obtained from these data
sources was shared in a meeting attended by the Hawaii Department of
Education, the Hawaii Department of Health, members of the State
Interagency Coordinating Council and members of the Steering Committees.

The report includes a detailed description of the process utilized to
collect data, and to determine strengths, areas of non-compliance with
IDEA, and suggestions for improved results for children.

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

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

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   Hawaii has many initiatives to encourage the identification of
    infants and toddlers in the State who are at-risk for developmental
    delays and those with developmental delays.

-   Hawaii has many initiatives and programs in the State to support and
    include families in the process of making decisions about their
    young child's early intervention services needs.

**[Suggestions for Improved Results for Infants and Toddlers with
Disabilities]{.underline}**

OSEP provides the following suggestions for improved results for infants
and toddlers with disabilities:

-   Increase referrals from primary referral sources in the first year
    from birth, and increase the dissemination of public awareness
    materials from primary referral sources.

-   Increase the use of family assessments to identify needed services
    for enhancing the development of infants and toddlers who are
    categorized as environmentally at-risk.

## Areas of Noncompliance

OSEP observed the following areas of non-compliance:

-   HDOH does not provide adequate monitoring and supervision to enforce
    obligations and correct deficiencies.

-   HDOH does not ensure that all infants and toddlers receive a
    comprehensive evaluation/assessment in all five developmental areas
    on a timely basis.

-   IFSPs are not developed with required content.

-   HDOH is not meeting its responsibility for ensuring the local
    education agency is notified of children who are approaching the age
    for transition, that timely transition meetings are held, and that
    transition plans are developed and implemented for each eligible
    child.

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

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

**[Strengths]{.underline}**

OSEP observed the following strengths:

-   The Special Parent Information Network provides assistance to
    parents in areas such as special education services and educational
    rights.

-   Statewide and district based Community Children's Councils have been
    established to promote strategies for working with families of
    children with disabilities.

-   The HDE is increasing awareness of the community services available
    to families of children with disabilities and improving educational
    services to students with special needs through the Pihano Na Mamo
    Project.

-   A software program to assist in the development of a career path for
    students with disabilities is used in some schools to promote the
    development of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) secondary
    transition goals and objectives.

-   The School-To-Work Opportunities system initiative provides staff
    development that focuses on career curriculum and career exploration
    programs as well as teaching strategies.

-   HDE's proposed monitoring system appears to have the potential to
    identify, promote, and support best practices that ensure program
    effectiveness, enforce legal requirements and measure results of
    corrective actions.

-   The Integrated Special Education Database System appears to have the
    potential to automate the record-keeping for all HDE processes
    involved in the evaluation, eligibility determinations, and
    servicing of students with disabilities.

**[Suggestions for Improved Results for Children with
Disabilities]{.underline}**

OSEP provides the following suggestions for improved results for
children with disabilities:

-   Establish a process to ensure that policies and procedures developed
    by the State that impact services to students with disabilities are
    made available to staff in schools.

-   Provide training to school staff on effective strategies to
    encourage parent involvement in the IEP process.

-   Promote a more effective utilization of HDE's personnel development
    resources by providing onsite in-service training activities.

-   Re-examine district services, especially in the remote areas of
    Hawaii, to determine whether districts are meeting their
    responsibility of providing services to preschool children with
    disabilities.

-   Provide effective training and technical assistance to district
    staff by focusing on best practices designed to improve services to
    students with disabilities.

## Areas of Noncompliance

OSEP observed the following areas of non-compliance:

-   HDE does not ensure that an adequate supply of qualified personnel
    is available to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to
    children with disabilities.

-   School districts do not always ensure that needed supports,
    services, accommodations and modifications are included in the IEP;
    that IEPs are consistently accessible to the regular education
    teachers, where appropriate; or that they are implemented in order
    for children with disabilities to be involved and progress in the
    general curriculum.

-   School districts do not always ensure that children with
    disabilities are included in State and district wide assessment
    programs with appropriate accommodations and modifications.

-   HDE did not complete implementation of the State's alternate
    assessment.

-   School districts do not always ensure that IEP teams include a
    statement of needed transition services in students' IEPs beginning
    at age 16, or that needed transition services are implemented.

-   School districts do not always invite other agencies that are likely
    to be responsible for providing or paying for needed transition
    services to IEP meetings, or take steps to obtain their input if
    they do not attend.

-   HDE's monitoring system, in place at the time of OSEP's monitoring,
    was not effective in identifying and correcting noncompliance with
    the Part B requirements that focus on improved results for children
    with disabilities.

-   HDE does not ensure that all Part B complaints are resolved within
    60 days after the complaint is filed unless exceptional
    circumstances exist with regard to a specific complaint.

-   HDE does not ensure that due process hearing decisions are reached
    within 45 days of the request for a hearing where the parties do not
    request extensions.

**[HAWAII MONITORING REPORT]{.underline}**

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

INTRODUCTION [2](#introduction)

Administrative Structures and Children Served
[2](#administrative-structures-and-children-served)

Statewide Assessment Program [2](#statewide-assessment-program)

Validation Planning and Data Collection
[2](#validation-planning-and-data-collection)

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

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

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

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

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
[2](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-infants-toddlers-and-their-families.)

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

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

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

STRENGTHS [2](#strengths)

V. PART C: EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION
[2](#v.-part-c-early-childhood-transition)

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

VI\. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT [2](#vi.-part-b-parent-involvement)

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

B. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
[2](#b.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-children-with-disabilities)

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

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

B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN
[2](#b.-suggestions-for-improved-results-for-children)

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

Validation Planning and Data Collection
[2](#validation-planning-and-data-collection-1)

A. STRENGTHS [2](#a.-strengths-1)

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

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

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

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

C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
[2](#c.-suggestion-for-improved-results-for-children-with-disabilities)

# INTRODUCTION

## Administrative Structures and Children Served

**[PART C]{.underline}**

The Hawaii Department of Health ("HDOH") is appointed as the lead agency
for the implementation of Part C of IDEA. HDOH as lead agency is
administratively responsible for ensuring Part C services are provided
to all eligible infants and toddlers in the State. Infants and toddlers
in Hawaii are determined eligible if they are diagnosed as (1)
developmentally delayed; (2) biologically at-risk (the State uses this
term to define a "diagnosed condition" under 34 CFR §303.16(a)(2)); or
(3) environmentally at-risk. Infants and toddlers who are biologically
at-risk are defined by the State as having prenatal, perinatal,
neonatal, or early developmental events suggestive of biological insults
to the developing central nervous system, which increase the probability
of delayed development. The State's category of "biological risk"
incorporates those who have a diagnosed physical or mental condition
that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay.
According to the State, the "biological risk" category includes but is
not limited to the following categories:

**Biological At-Risk Categories**

-   Down Syndrome

-   Fetal Alcohol Syndrome

-   AIDS

-   moderate-severe asphyxia

-   sensory impairments

-   SGA (small gestational age)

-   gestational ages under 32 weeks

-   failure to thrive

-   hearing loss resulting from chronic Otitis media

-   infants born to mothers with diabetes, a history of substance abuse,
    or a history of mental illness

-   Very low birth weight infants (1,500 grams or less).

**Environmental At-Risk Categories**

Infants and toddlers environmentally at-risk are defined as those with
physical, social or economic factors, which may limit development.
According to the State, Environmental risk includes, but is not limited
to the following conditions:\
\
**Environmental At-Risk Includes *One* of the Following Conditions**

-   Parental age: less than 16 years

-   Any existing physical, developmental, emotional, or psychiatric
    disability in a primary caregiver

-   Child abuse and neglect of target child or siblings

**Environmental At-Risk Includes *Two* of the Following Conditions**

-   Economically disadvantaged family

-   Single Parent

-   Incarceration of primary caregiver

-   Parental age: 16-18 and less than high school education

-   Low birth weight (1,500 to 2,500 grams)

-   Presence of physical, developmental, emotional, or psychiatric
    disability in a sibling or any other family member in the home.

The HDOH provides services to Part C eligible children through three
separate branches, divisions and sections.

1)  Infants and toddlers with developmental delays, a single delay, and
    those who are biologically at-risk and their families, receive care
    coordination, and early intervention services from the Early
    Intervention Section, through the Children with Special Health Needs
    Branch, located in the Family Health Services Division. To ensure
    the provision of Part C Services, the HDOH contracts with sixteen
    public and private programs Statewide. These 16 contracted programs
    are funded through a combination of State early intervention and
    Federal Part C funds. The early intervention staff in the lead
    agency is comprised of 23 individuals with a Full Time Equivalent of
    22.75. Staff includes supervisors, program consultants, analysts, a
    family support specialist, a council coordinator, a training
    coordinator, an insurance coordinator, an inclusion coordinator, a
    respite care coordinator, a data analyst, and clerical support
    personnel. At the time of OSEP's monitoring there were two
    vacancies.

2)  Infants and toddlers and their families who are environmentally
    at-risk receive Part C services through the Perinatal Health
    Services Section of the Maternal and Child Health Branch, located in
    the Family Health Services Division. The Perinatal Health Services
    Section utilizes Statewide contracted programs with Healthy Start
    and Early Head Start to provide Part C services, including care
    coordination and home visiting services to eligible infants and
    toddlers who are environmentally at-risk and their families;

3)  Eligible infants and toddles who are diagnosed as medically fragile,
    and their families, receive care coordination and nursing services
    from the Public Health Nursing Branch, which is located in the
    Community Health Nursing Division.

Hawaii provided early intervention services to approximately 6.27% of
their infants and toddlers in 1999. Approximately 48% of the total were
children with developmental delays, which reflects a 28.5% increase in
the identification of this population from the previous fiscal year.

**[PART B]{.underline}**

Hawaii's Part B system is a unitary agency that includes seven school
districts: Central, Hawaii, Honolulu, Kauai, Leeward, Maui, and
Windward. The structure of the Hawaii State education agency differs
from most other State education agencies in that the school districts
are part of the Hawaii Department of Education (HDE) and not separate
local educational agencies or sub-grantees. Hawaii reported a total Part
B 1999 child count for children with disabilities aged three through 21
of 20,551. Of these 1,646 children with disabilities were reported as
falling into the three through five age category, and 18,905 children
with disabilities fell into six through 21 age category.

State special education staff indicated that each district has a
superintendent who reports to the State superintendent, and two
education specialists who report to the district superintendent. Special
education is coordinated on a State-wide basis by the Special Needs
Branch, which has direct responsibility for complaint management, due
process hearings, monitoring, and Statewide technical assistance, but
has no line authority over regular or special administrators or staff at
the district level. The HDE special education office employs a special
education director and 51 professional special education staff, and as
of February 2001 had two vacancies. In addition, there are 13 support
staff members for special education in the HDE. All employees hold full
time positions. The education specialist for special education is
responsible for coordinating special education instruction, and the
education specialist for special services is responsible for
coordinating evaluation and related services. Special education teachers
report to the school principal rather than a special education
administrator.

As reported by the State special education staff, pursuant to Hawaii
State law, the Hawaii Department of Health is responsible for providing
occupational therapy, physical therapy, school health services, and
school mental health services as related services to students with
disabilities, and for conducting initial evaluations and reevaluations
for the purpose of determining the needs of students for such services.
As further reported, the HDE has no authority over the Hawaii Department
of Health staff to supervise or provide these evaluations and related
services. Special education administrators at both the State and
district levels have coordinating responsibility, but no supervisory
authority for staff who provide special education and related services.

According to State special education officials, the State of Hawaii has
been operating under the Felix Consent Decree since 1994. The Plaintiff
class, as defined in the Felix Consent Decree, are described as all
children and adolescents with disabilities residing in Hawaii, from
birth to twenty years of age, who are eligible for and in need of
education and mental health services but for whom programs, services,
and placements are either unavailable, inadequate, or inappropriate
because of a lack of continuum of services, programs, and
placements.[^1]

According to State special education staff, under the Felix Consent
Decree, HDE is responsible for: 1) hiring and retaining qualified
personnel; 2) purchasing appropriate services when needed; and 3)
ensuring that personnel continue professional development and improve
skills and knowledge in the areas of effective educational and
therapeutic methods. Assessment of the implementation status of the
consent decree, approved implementation plans and associated orders of
the court, involved determining the consistency of instruction and
related services for each child according to agreed-upon principles, and
the State's compliance in completing agreed-upon tasks and activities
intended to create system capacity.

## Statewide Assessment Program

As reported by State special education staff, Hawaii uses two Statewide
assessments, the Stanford Achievement Test, ninth edition (SAT-9) and
the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards II. The SAT-9 is a
norm-referenced test that measures reading comprehension and math
problem solving. It is administered in grades three, five, eight, and
10. The Hawaii Content and Performance Standards II is a standards-based
assessment that is criterion referenced and measures student performance
relative to the Hawaii Content and Performance Standards II in the areas
of reading, writing, and math. It also is administered in grades three,
five, eight, and 10. Hawaii policy permits students to be excused from
participating in assessments for the following reasons: parent refusal,
medically fragile, emotional distress, homebound, hospitalized, limited
English proficient. According to State special education staff, as of
February 2001 Hawaii's alternate assessment had not been implemented.
The alternate assessment is designed to assess the same standards as
general education assessments, and to collect alternate assessment data
through a "body of evidence" approach, or Evidence Binder. Teachers
would score the alternate assessments of their own students. Hawaii
reported it would measure student performance (skill and competence
level) as well as system performance (levels of staff support, variety
of instructional settings and their appropriateness, and participation
in general education settings) as part of their alternate assessment.
Hawaii reported it would use these measures in reporting group
performance of students who participate in the alternate assessment.

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

In preparation for the Validation Planning visit, the Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) reviewed previous Part B monitoring results
for Hawaii. An on-site monitoring review was conducted during the week
of January 23, 1995 and the final report was issued on March 8, 1995.
The report's findings of noncompliance addressed ensuring that: 1) if
the purpose of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting is the
consideration of transition services for a student, the public agency
invites to the meeting a representative of any other outside agency that
is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services; 2) parents receive a full explanation of all procedural
safeguards available to parents under 34 CFR §§300.500, 300.502-300.515,
and 300.562-300.569; and 3) HDE facilitates efforts to recruit, prepare,
and retain qualified personnel. This is the initial OSEP monitoring of
Part C in Hawaii and preparation involved review of the State's Part C
application, Annual Performance Reports, and data reports.

In preparation for the OSEP Validation Planning visit, HDOH and HDE
decided to establish separate Part C and Part B Steering Committees.

During the week of October 16, 2000, OSEP and the Steering Committees
conducted six public meetings across the State to obtain information
about issues and concerns about IDEA service delivery. Meetings were
held in Oahu, Hilo, Kona, Kauai (through a downlink), Molokai, and Maui.
Discussion for Part C addressed child find and public awareness,
family-centered services, early intervention services in natural
environments, transition from Part C to other appropriate services, and
general supervision of Part C by the Hawaii Department of Health. For
Part B, discussion centered on the provision of a free appropriate
public education to children with disabilities from ages three through
21 in the least restrictive environment, parent involvement in special
education decision-making, secondary transition for youth with
disabilities from school to post-school activities, and general
supervision of special education by HDE. At the beginning of the
following week, the information from the public meetings was discussed
with the Steering Committees to identify specific issues that OSEP could
investigate. Recommendations for data collection strategies and site
selection were discussed. OSEP staff reviewed and analyzed data and
documents relevant to meeting the requirements of IDEA.

OSEP visited the State during the week of February 12, 2001 for the
purpose of collecting additional data on the issues identified in
Validation Planning. For Part C, OSEP visited programs in Hawaii, Maui,
Oahu, and Kauai. For Part B, OSEP visited programs including preschool,
elementary, middle, and secondary schools located in Hawaii, Kauai, Maui
(including Molokai), and Oahu. OSEP presented preliminary results to the
Steering Committee on Friday, February 16, 2001 and next steps were
discussed which would begin the process of improvement planning.

# I. PART C: GENERAL SUPERVISION

The State Lead Agency, HDOH, 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 whether or not they
receive funds under Part C.

Each State may determine how it will meet its general supervision and
administration responsibilities. 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.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

As a part of the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, HDOH
submitted to OSEP a copy of the State's 1999 Self-assessment. The
Self-assessment Committee was constituted of over forty representatives
from the multiple agencies that provide services to infants and young
children throughout the State. Committee members formed work groups
according to their areas of interest and expertise, in 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. Each work group developed its own
section of the Self-assessment, which the Committee at-large reviewed
over several sessions. The Self-assessment Committee demonstrated strong
support for and commitment to developing the Self-assessment. Throughout
both of OSEP's onsite visits, the Self-assessment Committee continued
its involvement in the Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, with a
goal toward improvement planning. The Self-assessment Committee provided
an update to OSEP in September 2000, prior to the Validation Planning
visit, outlining the efforts accomplished in meeting the identified
needs in the State. The Self-assessment Committee's commitment to Part C
eligible infants and toddlers in the State continues to be apparent.
Moreover, OSEP recognizes the Committee as an asset to the State-wide
early intervention system, which provides Part C services to all
eligible infants and toddlers in Hawaii.

The Self-assessment identified areas of strength and concern in each of
the five cluster areas. In the area of general supervision, the State
identified the following strengths: (1) the development of a care
coordination standard to assist with the issue of case overload; (2) the
identification of personnel training needs; and (3) the use of quarterly
monitoring reports to track the delivery of services by the State Early
Intervention Program. The General Supervision section of the
Self-assessment acknowledged that the State contracted purchase of
service programs require annual monitoring to ensure contractual
requirements are met. However, the Self-assessment also identified a
lack of available personnel to regularly monitor programs and an
increase in reports for the Felix Monitoring Project, which has resulted
in insufficient time and personnel to conduct intensive in-person
program monitoring. As a result, HDOH has relied on the use of monthly
reports and Felix "Benchmark" reports to meet the State Lead Agency's
administrative and supervisory requirements under Part C of IDEA. In
addition to the Self-assessment, data collected by OSEP during
Validation Planning confirmed the concerns identified in the
Self-assessment. During Validation Planning, the State also confirmed
for OSEP that only one formal complaint was received in 1999-2000. The
State has since implemented a new system for logging complaints, and
began this implementation in July 2000.

To further investigate the areas identified in the Self-assessment, OSEP
addressed the question of General Supervision with those present at the
Public Input sessions held during the process of Validation Planning.
OSEP asked the following question during each of the public meetings:
*"How is the State Lead Agency involved in assuring that appropriate
services are provided to infants and toddlers with disabilities, e.g.:
interagency coordination, monitoring, technical assistance, etc?"* In
response to this question, parents, providers, program managers and
service coordinators identified the following concerns: (1) the lack of
available personnel training for therapists in the State; (2) the lack
of a comprehensive Part C monitoring system, and; (3) training
activities provided by the lead agency were not systemic.

As a part of the data collection process OSEP reviewed State and
district policies and procedures, interviewed State Lead Agency
officials, and also interviewed families, providers and managers at the
district level.

## A. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**The State Lead Agency has failed to employ proper methods of
administering the Part C program including monitoring contracted
programs used to provide Part C services, enforcing obligations and
correcting deficiencies.**

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.501(a)(2) 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. This 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 the HDOH has not
adopted and used proper methods of administering each program, including
monitoring agencies, institutions, and organizations used by the State
to carry out Part C, enforcing any obligations imposed on those agencies
under Part C and its regulations, providing technical assistance, and
correcting deficiencies.

HDOH identified in the Self-assessment that monitoring to ensure general
administration and supervision of programs and activities for IDEA
requirements under Part C last took place in 1998. Presently, the State
Lead Agency collects data as a method of monitoring for compliance with
the Felix Consent Decree. HDOH utilizes a system of Felix "Benchmarking"
to collect and summarize data on the timeliness of care coordination,
eligibility evaluations, and Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP)
completion. Felix "Benchmarking"' allows for a pass/fail system whereby
HDOH determines *if* certain components have been addressed, but not the
level of compliance with all Part C requirements. For example, the Felix
"Benchmarking" system collects data on the number of IFSPs developed,
but does not evaluate whether those IFSPs meet Part C requirements. In
addition, the use of this pass/fail process does not allow HDOH to
identify systemic issues for all areas of non-compliance, or to ensure
the correction of deficiencies in the Statewide early intervention
system. HDOH does not presently have an effective method in place to
monitor the full spectrum of requirements under Part C.

Interviews with program managers from the 16 contracted programs
confirmed in all areas visited that HDOH is not meeting its
administrative and supervisory responsibilities for monitoring the
Statewide early intervention system for compliance with all of the Part
C requirements of IDEA. All contract program managers interviewed
reported that the State Lead Agency has not performed direct program
monitoring in several years. Through interviews, OSEP confirmed that the
State Lead Agency presently monitors their programs through the use of
monthly and quarterly monitoring reports, which focus on data
collection. HDOH provided OSEP with copies of the monthly and quarterly
reports and the reporting protocol, which OSEP reviewed. These monthly
and quarterly reports focus on enrollment data, number of referrals
received, average daily attendance, number of individual evaluations
performed, number of IFSPs developed, number of children transferred or
transitioned, and the number of children receiving care coordination..
The State tracks this data to determine patterns of service delivery.
However, this tracking of service delivery is not sufficient to
determine areas of non-compliance with Part C.

When asked how the lead agency ensured compliance, State Lead Agency
officials stated that monthly meetings are held for program managers
with the 16 contract programs funded to provide Part C services, and the
Public Health Nursing Branch. During this meeting the State Lead Agency
provides program managers with policy guidance and updates on the Part C
program. This information is then "trickled down" to the district
program level. Program managers interviewed confirmed in all areas that
the State Lead Agency does answer questions and provides technical
assistance when requested. This process is not sufficient, however, to
meet the State's supervisory responsibilities.

In addition to being required to monitor local contracting entities, the
lead agency is required to ensure that all entities that implement any
part of the Part C program, whether or not they receive Part C funds,
are monitored for compliance. Program managers for Healthy Start and
Early Head Start confirmed that the State Lead Agency had not monitored
their programs for compliance with Part C requirements, nor had it
requested monitoring coordination/information sharing.

OSEP finds that the efforts of HDOH to collect data on the district
programs through the use of monthly and quarterly "monitoring reports"
and monthly meetings is not sufficient to address systemic issues of
non-compliance, or to correct deficiencies. Due to the fact HDOH is not
presently conducting effective monitoring activities, has not identified
any of the violations of Part C identified in this report, and has not
corrected any deficiencies as required by 34 CFR §303.501(b), OSEP finds
the HDOH is unable to effectively enforce all the obligations imposed
under Part C of IDEA, and to correct deficiencies that could be
identified through monitoring.

# 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.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

The Self-assessment identified strengths and concerns in each of the
five cluster areas. In the area of Child Find and Public Awareness, the
State's Self-assessment identified the following strengths: (1) Project
Seek, a federally funded project, that works with primary care providers
in the State identifies best strategies to encourage making referrals;
(2) strong emphasis on the child's Medical Home[^2] to foster the
identification of potentially Part C eligible infants and toddlers in
the community through routine developmental screenings; (3) Newborn
Hearing Screening conducted on nearly 99% of all infants in the State;
and (4) training to inform referring and collaborating agencies about
early intervention services. In addition, the State's Self-assessment
identified the following areas requiring improvement: (1) public
awareness materials need to be updated and translated into other
languages; (2) lower rate of referrals from primary referral sources;
and (3) insufficient number of Care Coordinators, resulting in high
caseloads.

OSEP addressed the topic of Child Find and Public Awareness with those
present at the Public Input sessions held during the process of
Validation Planning. OSEP asked the following question during each of
the public meetings: *"Are there any barriers to the process of
referring infants and toddlers to the Early Intervention System, or in
obtaining evaluations?"* In response to this question, parents,
providers, program managers and service coordinators identified the
following concerns: (1) the need for public awareness materials to be
updated and translated into other languages; and (2) low rate of
physician referrals. During the Validation Planning Visit, the
Self-assessment Committee provided OSEP with copies of brochures and
materials that had been translated since the identification of this need
in the Self-assessment. OSEP recognizes the State's effort in correcting
an area requiring improvement, and commends the Self-assessment
Committee for addressing this need.

States are required to evaluate infants and young children to determine
eligibility and to assess to determine needed services. In the area of
Child Find and Public Awareness, the Self-assessment identified the
following concerns: (1) insufficient number of care coordinators to
assist in the completion of evaluations and assessments; and, (2)
personnel shortages which impact on the timely completion of evaluations
for determination of eligibility and the delivery of services.

OSEP addressed the completion of Evaluations and Assessments during
Validation Planning with the same question used to address Child Find
and Public Awareness (see above.) Areas of inquiry concerning
evaluations included personnel shortages, cultural and language
barriers, and waiting lists. Providers, program managers, and families
identified the following barriers to completing Evaluations and
Assessments for infants and toddlers, which included: (1) children are
not consistently evaluated in all five developmental areas; and (2)
personnel shortages for Occupational, Speech and Physical Therapists
cause delays in evaluations, resulting in children being placed on
waiting lists.

To confirm the preliminary data surrounding identification and delays in
evaluation identified in the State's Self-assessment and during
Validation Planning, OSEP collected data and information from a variety
of sources. OSEP reviewed State and district policies and procedures,
analyzed a sample of IFSPs from early intervention programs across the
State, and interviewed State Lead Agency officials, families, providers
and managers at the district level. With regard to Child Find and Public
Awareness, the following conclusions were supported by families,
providers and program managers at the district level in all areas: (1)
general lack of awareness of early intervention services in the
community; (2) physician delays in making referrals due to a 'wait and
see' philosophy; and (3) the location of centralized intake on Oahu
which may cause delays in referrals on the outer islands.

As a part of Validation Data Collection, OSEP reviewed the State
Policies and Procedures surrounding Child Find and Evaluation and
Assessment (refer to pages 31-32 of the FY-1998 Part C State
Application). The written procedures include the review of current
health records and medical history, and the evaluation of the infant or
toddler's present level of development in all five areas. Further, OSEP
referenced the State's eligibility criteria for infants and toddlers
with a developmental delay and those biologically at-risk (refer to
pages 13-16 of FY-1998 Part C State Application.) Eligibility for
infants and toddlers with a developmental delay is to be determined by a
multidisciplinary team, through the use of an evaluation and informed
clinical opinion. Eligibility for infants and toddlers with a biological
risk is determined based on a signed physician statement, indicating the
medical condition is likely to lead to a developmental delay.
Eligibility for infants and toddlers environmentally at-risk is
established through the documentation of risk factors by the interim
Care Coordinator.

OSEP also interviewed program managers, care coordinators, therapists
and parents about the processes used for referral, evaluation and
assessment. Processes varied between the 16 contracted programs, the
other early intervention service providers, and by location.

## A. AREA OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**HDOH is not ensuring that all infants and toddlers in the State who
are eligible for Part C services are evaluated in all five developmental
areas on a timely basis.**

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.322 require that the State Lead Agency
ensure the completion of a timely, comprehensive, multidisciplinary
evaluation of each child referred, to determine the current levels of
function, needs and services. Under 34 CFR §303.322(a)(2) and 34 CFR
§303.322(c)(3) the lead agency is responsible for ensuring that local
agencies evaluate and assess each child referred in all five
developmental areas, regardless of whether the infant or toddler is
referred for developmental delays or an established condition. Section
34 CFR §303.322(c) requires that the evaluation and initial assessment
of the child be completed within 45 days of referral.

Through parent and provider interviews, State Lead Agency interviews and
policy reviews, as well as IFSP reviews, OSEP found that infants and
toddlers in the first, second and fourth islands visited are not
evaluated in all five developmental areas (cognitive, physical,
communication, social and emotional, and adaptive development) within 45
days. These infants and toddlers are only being evaluated in the area(s)
of concern. Some of these infants and toddlers may be evaluated later in
other developmental areas, but not within the time required. Other
infants and toddlers may not ever be evaluated beyond the area(s) of
concern. Families in the third island visited are being offered the
choice of either a full or partial evaluation. On the fourth island,
programs serving infants and toddlers classified as developmentally
delayed provide infants and toddlers with a complete evaluation in all
five developmental areas, but the young child may wait between two and
four months for that evaluation.

OSEP noted in three of the five islands visited that children identified
as biologically at-risk who might be expected to have multiple delays
were not assessed in all five developmental areas to determine needed
services. Instead, these infants and toddlers were screened (using the
Infant Caregiver Monitoring Questionnaire ("ICMQ")) and were referred
for an evaluation solely in the area(s) of concern if they did not pass
the screening.

Evaluating an infant or toddler solely in the area of concern does not
allow for the identification of other potential developmental delays in
other developmental areas, which can remain undetected. As a result,
infants and toddlers may not receive all needed services on a timely
basis. Through IFSP reviews, OSEP found that the IFSPs for some infants
and toddlers had been amended to list a hearing impairment. If the
infant or toddler had been evaluated in all five developmental areas
initially, the hearing impairment may have been identified earlier.

OSEP finds that the HDOH is not meeting the requirement to fully
evaluate all infants and toddlers within 45 days. The impact on infants
and toddlers and their families is that complete IFSPs are not developed
within a timely basis, and the delivery of services is delayed. This
issue is further addressed in the Early Intervention Services in the
Natural Environment section of this Report.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR INFANTS, TODDLERS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

1)  **The State should make efforts to increase referrals from primary
    referral sources in an infant's first year, and should increase the
    dissemination of public awareness materials.**

Part C Regulations at 34 CFR §303.321(d)(1) provide for a child find
system that includes procedures for use by primary referral sources to
refer a child to the appropriate public agency for an evaluation and
assessment and, as appropriate, the provision of services.

Hawaii has many initiatives that encourage the early identification of
infants and toddlers in the State who are at-risk for developmental
delays and those with developmental delays, such as: (1) public
awareness materials that are available in six languages; (2) several
primary referral projects; (3) focus on the medical home; and (4)
Newborn Hearing Screening. OSEP recognizes these ongoing efforts by the
Hawaii Early Intervention Coordinating Council (HEICC) and HDOH to
encourage referrals from primary referral sources. However, OSEP found
in three of the five islands visited that there is limited availability
of public awareness materials in these communities, as well as a lack of
referrals from primary care providers.

In the first island visited, parents reported they did not have
knowledge of early intervention services prior to referral. Parents also
confirmed that physicians do not make timely referrals for evaluations
due to a "wait and see" philosophy.

In the second island visited, providers and program managers confirmed
that physicians believe children will outgrow their developmental delays
and therefore do not make timely referrals. These providers and program
managers also confirmed a lack of public awareness materials in the
community due to a need to "keep up with the numbers they have."

In the third island visited, parents, providers, and program managers
all confirmed physicians either refer late, or do not make referrals for
early intervention services. In addition, all agreed physician awareness
of early intervention services need to be increased. Finally, all
confirmed the availability of public awareness materials, and knowledge
of early intervention services, are viewed as limited in local
communities.

OSEP is particularly concerned about the second island visited, which
seems to intentionally restrict the distribution of public awareness
materials, due to an inability to provide services. As a part of
Improvement Planning, OSEP recommends that HDOH focus on continuing the
work to increase early referrals by physicians and improve the process
for the utilization of public awareness materials about the availability
of Part C services in the State.

2)  **The State should increase the use of family-centered assessments
    to enhance a family's capacity to meet the developmental needs of
    infants and toddlers who are categorized as environmentally
    at-risk.**

As a part of the Validation Data Collection process, OSEP reviewed the
policies and procedures surrounding assessment, and the specific
assessment tools used by the Hawaii Part C Early Intervention program to
determine what methods and procedures are currently in place. OSEP
confirmed that the program delivery model targeted to provide early
intervention services to infants and toddlers and their families who are
categorized as environmentally at-risk primarily identifies these young
children shortly after birth, while still in the hospital. OSEP commends
the Part C System for its strong efforts to integrate the resources
available through each public agency in the State, but believes the Lead
Agency could do more to assist these at-risk families to enhance their
capacity to meet the developmental needs of their infants and toddlers.

It is OSEP's recommendation that the Hawaii Part C Early Intervention
Program use a comprehensive family-needs assessment with at-risk
families, to determine not only social and welfare needs, but needs
surrounding the family's ability to enhance their young child's
development.

# 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 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.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

In the area of Early Intervention Services in the Natural Environment,
the State's Self-assessment identified the following: (1) families were
not consistently involved in the development of their infant or
toddler's IFSP; and, (2) there was a lack of sufficient care
coordinators and providers to develop the IFSP and provide services. As
a part of Validation Planning, OSEP asked the following questions during
the public input sessions across the State: *"Do all infants and
toddlers and their families receive all the services they need,
including service coordination? Where do children receive their
services?"* Probes for environments where services are received included
community settings, day care, home and the home of a close relative. In
response to this question, participants reported the following: (1)
inadequate supply of staff to complete evaluations and assessment within
45 days; (2) care coordinators carry high caseloads and need training in
the provision of Early Intervention Services in Natural Environments;
and (3) families receive services in segregated, self-contained
settings. To examine the issues identified during Validation Planning,
OSEP asked families, providers, care coordinators, and administrators
about the process of developing IFSPs.

## A. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

**IFSPs are not developed with required content.**

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.344(a) require that present levels of
development be written into an IFSP in all five developmental areas,
according to professionally objective criteria. Of the IFSPs reviewed
from all islands visited, present levels of functioning are written in
some developmental areas but not all developmental areas, and are most
frequently omitted in gross motor and speech. In other cases, present
levels of functioning are completed for all developmental levels, but
are not adequate to determine needed services, or these statements are
not based on professionally acceptable objective criteria, as required
by 34 CFR §303.344(a)(2).

According to State Lead Agency officials, the Infant Caregiver
Monitoring Questionnaire (ICMQ) is used to screen infants and toddlers
upon intake, and further evaluations and assessments are needed to
determine needed services. As reflected in Section II A of this Report,
the State has not ensured that all infants and toddlers with
disabilities receive a comprehensive, timely evaluation in all five
developmental areas to determine current levels of functioning.

Many of the IFSPs reviewed from the five islands visited contained
outcomes for completing evaluations and assessments after the 45-day
timeline had elapsed. OSEP found this to be true even for infants and
toddlers with established conditions. According to State Lead Agency
officials, outcomes for assessments are put into the IFSP because the
ICMQ is used to screen, and further assessment is required. Infants and
toddlers in the fourth island visited are routinely assessed over a
period of time, and the assessment is completed by the IFSP review at
six months.

Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.344 (d) require the IFSP to include a
statement of early intervention services necessary to meet the unique
needs of the child and the child's family, to achieve outcomes
identified on the IFSP. The statement of services must include a
description of the frequency and intensity of services, including the
number of days/sessions and the length of time the service will be
provided during these sessions. For those IFSPs that OSEP examined,
where needed services had been identified through evaluation and
assessment, statements regarding frequency, intensity and method were
included. However, because all infants and toddlers in Hawaii are not
evaluated in all five developmental areas initially, a description of
all needed services is not identified, and therefore IFSPs are not
complete. OSEP found in most areas visited, that services were provided
prior to the completion of a comprehensive assessment. Federal
regulations at 34 CFR §303.345(b)(1) allow an eligible child and the
child's family to receive early intervention services prior to the
completion of evaluation and assessment, if parental consent is obtained
and an interim IFSP is developed. The regulations at 34 CFR
§303.345(b)(2) require the interim IFSP to include the name of the
service coordinator who will be responsible for implementation of the
interim IFSP, in order to provide the services determined to be needed
immediately by the child and the child's family. However, this does not
absolve the State Lead Agency of its responsibility to complete the
evaluation and assessment within 45 days, including the completion of an
assessment of the child's present levels of functioning in all five
developmental areas, and a family needs assessment.

In addition, Part C regulations at 34 CFR §303.344(h) require that the
IFSPs include steps to support the transition of the child in accordance
with 34 CFR §303.148. The transition steps in the IFSP must include: (1)
transition to Part B preschool services to the extent appropriate or to
other services that may be available, if appropriate; (2) training of
the family on transition; (3) the procedures used to prepare the child
to transition; and, (4) the transmission of information about the child,
with parental consent.

OSEP's review of IFSPs found that in three of the five geographic areas
visited, IFSPs of toddlers nearing transition age did not contain
transition steps as required. Specifically, 80% of the IFSPs reviewed in
three of the five islands visited were out of compliance with the
transition requirements. In some cases, the forms were left blank or
there were no transition steps in the IFSP. In others, the transition
plan may have been completed and signed, but all of the required steps
were not incorporated into the IFSP. For example, the name of the local
education agency was left blank. This may indicate that the local
education agency was not included in the process and would not have
known the child was turning age three and could be in need of services.
The effect of these examples on toddlers and their families is a delay
in receiving needed transition services.

As a result of IFSP reviews and interviews conducted during the
Validation Data Collection, OSEP concludes the HDOH is not meeting its
responsibility for ensuring the development and implementation of IFSPs
for each eligible child, in accordance with the requirements of Part C
of IDEA.

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

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

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

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

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

In the area of Family Centered Services, the State's Self-assessment
identified the following: (1) outreach to families is considered a
strength of the Hawaii Part C Early Intervention System; (2) most
families report they have knowledge of their rights; (3) families are
involved in the process of policy development and giving input related
to the Felix Consent Decree; and (4) efforts are being made to increase
the number of immigrants and non-English speakers that are served.

As a part of Validation Planning, OSEP asked the following question
during the public input sessions across the State: *"How are families
included and supported in the process of making decisions about their
child's services? What family support services are available in your
community?"* In response to this question, OSEP learned the following:
(1) Early Head Start and Healthy Start programs offer home visits to
infants and toddlers and their families who are diagnosed as at-risk;
(2) care coordinator positions have been increased State-wide and more
care coordinators have been hired to decrease high caseloads; (3) more
programs are in place to assist families with hearing impaired children;
and (4) Project Kako'o is being replicated in other parts of the State.

## STRENGTHS

OSEP finds that Hawaii has many initiatives and programs in the State,
such as Project Kako'o, to support and include families in the process
of making decisions about their young child's early intervention
services needs. HDOH as State Lead Agency continually attempts to
address the social and cultural needs of Hawaii's large multicultural
population.

As a result of the information gathered on the Family Centered Services
component during Validation Planning, and as a part of the State's
Self-assessment, OSEP elected not to focus on this component
specifically during Validation Data Collection interviews.

# V. 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 lead agency, the educational agency
and the family, at least 90 days (with parental permission up to six
months) prior to the child's third birthday. Transition of children who
are not eligible for special education also includes 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.

**[Validation Planning 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) "most families with
children under two (80%) indicated that they had not yet discussed
transition planning" and, (3) "Maui has isolated rural areas that may
have a history of delayed transition, and Part B and Part C staff have
met previously to discuss this need."

As a part of Validation Planning, OSEP asked the following question
during the public input sessions across the State: *"By the child's
third birthday, does transition planning result in the timely provision
of needed supports and services to a child and child's family?"* Areas
of inquiry around early childhood transition included the process for
identification of appropriate services, informing the local education
agency, and training for families on transition. In response to this
question, OSEP learned the following: (1) children who are not eligible
for Part B services have limited placement options; (2) families do not
always feel supported during the transition process; and (3) children
are often placed on waiting lists for evaluations to determine HDOE
eligibility.

To confirm the issues identified during Validation Planning, 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

**HDOH 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. HDOH is not ensuring that transition
plans are developed and implemented in accordance with the requirements
of Part C of IDEA.**

To confirm information reported in the Self-assessment and obtained
through Validation Planning, as well as data collected from IFSP
reviews, OSEP interviewed program managers and providers in all islands
visited, and asked about the process used for early childhood
transition. Interviews with program managers and providers on three
islands visited confirm that programs do not know "when to invite Part B
into the process" when the transition plan is developed. Further, Care
Coordinators on the second island visited expressed a need for technical
assistance in learning the protocol for transition from Part C to Part B
services. Program managers on the fourth island visited stated that
transition meetings are not held, and the Part B system staff is not
invited to participate in the development of a transition plan.

As a part of Validation Data Collection, OSEP interviewed State Lead
Agency officials to discuss procedures for early childhood transition.
Officials from HDOH informed OSEP that new procedures are in place at
HDOE and new HDOE staff was recently hired. However, the procedures for
transition to Part B services may be different in different districts.
HDOH officials also confirm the need for more technical assistance in
this area so "Care Coordinators know whom to involve."

Federal regulations at 34 CFR §303.148 require that the State Lead
Agency notify the local educational 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. OSEP's interviews with program managers and
providers on three islands visited found HDOH is not meeting its
responsibility for notifying the local education agency of children who
will shortly reach the age of preschool eligibility. OSEP reviewed the
Interagency Agreement in place for Early Childhood Transition between
the HDOH and the HDOE. The agreement requires that Part C will inform
the local education agency of the child and convene a meeting to discuss
transition planning. However, individual meetings for each toddler are
not being held to discuss transition to preschool or other appropriate
services.

Part C requirements 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. 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 Part C and Early Childhood
staff on three islands, and found on all three islands that the practice
is not consistently adhered to regardless of Part B eligibility. In
addition, IFSPs do not always contain the required steps to support
transition, as discussed in Section III A of this Report in the Early
Intervention Services in the Natural Environments section.

OSEP finds the HDOH is not meeting its responsibility for ensuring the
local education agency is notified of children who are approaching the
age for early childhood transition, that meetings are held, and that
transition plans are developed and implemented in accordance with the
requirements of Part C of IDEA.

# VI. PART B: PARENT INVOLVEMENT

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

**[Validation Planning and Validation Data Collection]{.underline}**

During the Validation Planning phase, OSEP gathered information from the
State's Part B Self-assessment, public input meetings, and the Hawaii
Part B Steering Committee. One of the focus questions asked at public
input meetings was: *"How are parents involved in the education of their
children with disabilities?"* OSEP reviewed additional data from
advocacy groups and HDE. As a result, the following areas of concern
were identified by the advocacy groups and public input participants: 1)
parents need training, including training in the Individualized
Education Plan (IEP) process and parental rights; 2) outreach is needed
to address the needs of underrepresented parent populations including
immigrant, bilingual, and illiterate parents and families of children
with low incidence disabilities; 3) parents do not feel respected as
members in IEP team deliberations, and feel that their input is ignored;
4) school staff bring completed IEPs to IEP meetings and do not include
parent input; 5) public agencies schedule IEP meetings at the
convenience of school staff, not at a time mutually agreeable to
parents; and 6) parents must push to get services for their children,
and those children whose parents do not push, are more likely to receive
inadequate/inappropriate services.

As reported in HDE's Self-assessment, its Parent Involvement
responsibilities include: 1) the advancement of parent involvement
through training and information dissemination, and 2) active
involvement of parents and youth with disabilities to promote
appropriate services and transition services for children with
disabilities and involvement in school-based improvement efforts.
Concerns reported in the Self-assessment are: a) some key training
components do not target families as audiences nor as co-trainers; b)
there is a need to continue to identify other topics where families and
HDE should work together to promote provision of services to students
with disabilities; and c) there is a lack of information provided to
families of unserved and/or under-served populations regarding training
opportunities.

OSEP found in its 1995 monitoring report that HDE did not meet its
responsibility to ensure that parents received a full explanation of
procedural safeguards. Parents' rights notices given to parents at that
time omitted or incompletely addressed certain procedural safeguards.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process OSEP: collected information from the review of children's
records and State and district policies and procedures, and interviews
of State personnel, district program administrators, teachers, and
parents; reviewed HDE's analysis of its Self-assessment and OSEP's 1995
HDE monitoring report to note previous findings; analyzed the data; and
identified the following areas of strength and suggestion for improved
results for children.

## A. STRENGTHS

1.  **Community Children's Council**

According to HDE's Self-assessment, the focus of monthly meetings
sponsored by the Community Children\'s Council includes strategies for
dealing with parent involvement. Statewide and district based Community
Children\'s Councils were established five years ago under the Felix
Consent Decree. Each council of providers and families of children with
disabilities works together to create a system of care to meet the
individual needs of each child. Parents determine the workshop topics
and turnout has been very good with new parents attending. To promote
parent attendance and participation, the council offers such activities
as free dinners and free childcare.

2.  **Special Parent Information Network**

The Special Parent Information Network provides assistance to parents in
areas such as special education services and educational rights. A
quarterly newsletter contains articles on upcoming meetings and events
addressing special education. A free subscription is available. This
information network provides assistance that enables families to
participate in the education of children and young adults with
disabilities as well as the professionals who work with them. The
information network also offers additional formats such as videotapes,
audiotapes, websites, and telecommunications. The main informational
material, a brochure entitled *Parent Guide to Partnership in Special
Education,* explains parent and child rights in special education. This
brochure has been translated into languages most commonly spoken in
Hawaii.

3.  **Pihano Na Mamo Project**

The Pihano Na Mamo Project focuses on increasing awareness of the
community services available to families with disabilities and improving
educational services to students with special needs. Seventeen of the
demonstration sites for the project have "parent involvers." The
project's major goals target the promotion of services to students with
disabilities through:

-   utilizing pre-referral/mainstreaming strategies and inclusive
    supports to meet the needs of students within the regular school
    environments;

-   encouraging the involvement of parents, families, and the community
    in education of students with disabilities; and

-   providing culturally relevant and sensitive instructional
    strategies, materials, and experiences to Hawaiian students with
    special needs.

## B. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

OSEP made the following observation about improving the provision of
services to children with disabilities:

**Parent involvement to promote improved programs and services for
children with disabilities**

During OSEP interviews with 24 parents in three districts, OSEP received
information regarding parent involvement in the provision of services to
children with disabilities. Concerns noted by parents included: 1) lack
of communication between school and home; and 2) participation in the
development of IEPs.

> *[Lack of communication between school and home]{.underline}*
>
> Parents reported to OSEP that communication between school and home
> depends on the particular teacher. They perceived that if teachers are
> not knowledgeable about notifying parents about meetings and rights,
> it does not happen. According to some educators interviewed,
> principals may receive information from HDE regarding special
> education issues that concern communication with parents, however the
> information is not passed on to teachers or parents.
>
> *[Development of IEPs]{.underline}*

Parents reported, through OSEP interviews, that IEP meetings do not
necessarily promote parent involvement. The parents reported that
because IEP meetings are held during the school day, teachers are unable
to participate in the entire IEP meeting. This leaves limited time for
parents to provide input or address teacher concerns. Some parents
reported that IEPs are developed before meetings. They said that the
completed IEPs are sent home to the parents after the meeting. These
completed IEPs do not reflect the discussion or parent input nor do the
signature blocks for participants reflect actual participant attendance.
Although OSEP interviewed school staff, building administrators, and
special education directors in five districts as well as reviewed 46 IEP
files, OSEP was not able to substantiate the above information reported
by parents interviewed.

HDE should consider establishing a process that will ensure new or
revised policies and procedures developed by the State that impact
communication between school personnel and parents of students with
disabilities are made available to staff in schools. Also, HDE may
consider providing training to school staff on effective strategies to
encourage parent involvement in the IEP process. These methods can
assist in promoting the partnerships between the school and parents.

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

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

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

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

During the Validation Planning phase OSEP gathered information from the
State's Part B Self-assessment, public input meetings and the Part B
State Steering Committee. Parents, educators, service providers, and
other stakeholders throughout the State attended the public input
meetings. Focus questions asked at the public input meetings included
the following: *"Are students with disabilities receiving the special
education and related services they need?" "How do students with
disabilities participate with nondisabled students? Do all students,
regardless of placement, have access to the same curriculum as their
nondisabled peers?"* and *"By the child's third birthday, does
transition planning result in the timely provision of needed supports
and services to a child and a child's family?"* OSEP reviewed additional
data from parent advocacy groups, HDE, and OSEP records. The following
areas of concern were identified by OSEP through the public input
process: 1) inadequate accommodations, modifications, and supports
provided to children with disabilities in the general education setting;
2) shortage of related service providers, special education teachers,
and educational assistants to provide a free appropriate public
education; 3) waiting list for special education and related services;
4) concerns about teacher re-certification requirements; 5) lack of
certified teachers; 6) lack of continuum of placements for students with
low incidence disabilities; 7) lack of child find for children in
private schools who may be in need of special education and related
services, particularly for preschool aged children; 8) school evaluation
procedures cause delays in transition to preschool services; 9)
evaluations only address eligibility, not a child's individualized
instructional needs; 10) shortage of teaching supplies and materials;
and 11) lack of funding for services.

HDE identified the following areas as promising practices through its
Self-assessment process: 1) Aggressive recruitment and retention
activities that should fill anticipated vacancies by 2002; 2) An
alternative assessment program that was adopted in July 2000; and 3) Two
preschool transition programs that have been established to enhance the
opportunity for young children with disabilities to participate in
school.

Many of the areas OSEP identified as areas of concern were also
identified by HDE as areas of concern through its Self-assessment
process. These areas of concern included: 1) a lack of trained personnel
to implement school based services, especially in related services; 2)
approximately 40% of special education teachers are uncertified; 3) a
high turnover in special education teachers; 4) a lack of continuum of
placement options for low incidence disabilities; 5) a lack of
accommodations, modifications, and supports to enable students to be
successful in general education settings; 6) a severe need for joint
training of general education and special education teachers in teaching
strategies, evaluation of student work, adaptations/modifications and
supports; and 7) evaluations that focus on identification, rather than
programming and instructional recommendations.

As reflected in its 1995 monitoring report, OSEP found that HDE did not
meet its responsibility to ensure the provision of services to children
with disabilities in the least restrictive environment through the
facilitation of efforts among the State education agency and
administrative districts, institutions of higher education, and
professional associations to recruit, prepare, and retain qualified
personnel.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process OSEP: collected information from the review of children's
records and State and district policies and procedures, and interviews
of State personnel, district program administrators, teachers, and
parents; reviewed HDE's analysis of its Self-assessment and OSEP's 1995
HDE monitoring report to note previous findings; analyzed the data; and
identified the following areas of noncompliance, and suggestions for
improved results for children.

## A. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1.  **Failure to Provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to Children
    with Disabilities Because of Inadequate Supply of Qualified
    Personnel**

34 CFR §300.300 requires that a free appropriate public education be
made available to all children with disabilities. According to 34 CFR
§300.532(c)(ii), standardized tests administered to a child must be done
so by trained and knowledgeable personnel. In addition, 34 CFR
§300.380(a)(2) requires that each State have a comprehensive system of
personnel development that is designed to ensure an adequate supply of
qualified personnel, including special education and related services
personnel, necessary to carry out the purposes of IDEA. Through
interviews with administrators and teachers in four out of the six
districts visited, OSEP found that HDE does not always ensure that
children with disabilities receive the special education and related
services they need. An inadequate supply of qualified and trained
personnel has resulted in the provision of services based upon staff
availability rather than the needs of the child and children with
disabilities not receiving needed or appropriate services.

In one district, OSEP found insufficient personnel to meet the needs of
all eligible children with disabilities resulting in services being
determined by availability of the services provided instead of student
need. Five special educators reported that due to a lack of adequate
personnel to conduct assessments, required re-evaluations were not being
completed in a timely manner. As a result of the lack of trained and
knowledgeable personnel to administer re-evaluations, four special
education teachers reported to OSEP that they are responsible for
conducting the re-evaluations even though they do not have the necessary
training or skills to conduct them. Two special educators, a principal,
and special education director told OSEP that schools are told not to
list an individual educational aide as a support in IEPs for any child
with a disability even if the team determines that this service is
necessary for the student to benefit from special education. They
explained that available aides must be placed in classrooms to assist
the teacher with all students. A speech and language therapist told OSEP
that she only provides therapy based on the time she has available,
which is one period per week, because of the size of her caseload.

Two building administrators and a special education director told OSEP
that of the 13 special education positions in the district, nine are
staffed with uncertified personnel. Although efforts are made to ensure
that positions are staffed, the remote location causes many qualified
staff to relocate to other areas. Three mental health providers and a
social worker told OSEP that this high turnover results in many students
with disabilities becoming frustrated. Often times, these students
exhibit disruptive behaviors and are referred for evaluation to address
the behavioral issues.

In a second district, two special education teachers reported that they
had a special education teaching vacancy in their building. This vacancy
was affecting services to children with disabilities because they were
not able to give students all the services listed in their IEPs. A
related service provider reported that his/her high caseload has
resulted in him/her placing children in groups, rather than providing
the individual services that some of them need. Again, the type of
service that these children received was based upon the provider's
availability, rather than students' needs.

In a third district, staff at all levels reported to OSEP that there are
not enough qualified personnel because qualified teachers leave due to
the low salary. For example, a building administrator said he had an
excellent teacher for children with autism but that the teacher would
not be returning because he could make \$15,000 more on the mainland.
The principal stated that the irony of this was that he would be sent to
the mainland to recruit another teacher and it would cost the HDE, as
much, or more, than if they would give the money to the teacher. Another
special education teacher stated that he was the only teacher remaining
out of 63 recruited with him seven years ago.

This district also has severe shortages in related service personnel
that affect the ability of the district to meet children's needs. The
lack of adequate personnel to meet the needs of children with
disabilities is exacerbated by the fact that administrative procedures
are not followed to ensure personnel are paid for services provided to
children with disabilities. A special education teacher stated, and a
district special education administrator confirmed, that the school
currently did not have services requiring an occupational therapist
because the therapist had not been paid for four months and refused to
work. As a result, children were not receiving occupational therapy
services in their IEPs. A related service provider and a special
education teacher stated that speech services were limited, regardless
of student need, because the therapist could only visit the school a
maximum of once per week. For example, the special education teacher
reported that one child with a disability, who was nonverbal and had
high speech needs, was provided speech only once a week because of the
therapist's availability. A district administrator confirmed that there
were three vacancies for speech therapists and that children were not
receiving the needed services as a result. A building administrator and
two special education teachers stated that there were no funds to hire
additional educational assistants needed to meet IEP goals and
objectives.

In a fourth district, all school personnel acknowledged a shortage of
qualified special education staff and related service personnel. All
special education teachers reported that their students do not always
get the IEP services or the time specified on the IEP to be successful.
One district administrator explained that teacher workload impacted the
school's ability to use certain educational strategies such as
trans-disciplinary interventions and inclusive programs. A building
administrator reported that 40% of the special education staff is not
certified and there is not much incentive for staff to become certified
teachers.

2.  **Failure to Provide Supports and Services, Accommodations and
    Modifications for Children with Disabilities to be Successful in the
    Regular Education Classroom**

34 CFR §300.342(b) requires that a child\'s IEP is accessible to each
regular education teacher who is responsible for the implementation of
the IEP and that the teacher is informed of the specific accommodations,
modifications, and supports that must be provided for the child in
accordance with the IEP. 34 CFR §300.346(d) requires that the regular
education teacher of a child with a disability participate in assisting
the IEP team in determining the supplementary aids and services, program
modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for
the child. 34 CFR §300.347(a)(3(ii) requires that the IEP contain a
statement of the supplementary aids and services and of the program
modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for
the child to be involved and progress in the general curriculum. In
addition, 34 CFR §300.550(b)(2) requires that each public agency ensure
that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children
with disabilities from the regular educational environment occur only if
the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in
regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot
be achieved satisfactorily.

In four out of six districts visited, OSEP found that there is a lack of
support for general education teachers to ensure that students with
disabilities are successful in the general curriculum. OSEP also found
that, in cases where program modifications and supports were included in
the IEP, the general education teachers were not aware of their
responsibilities to implement them in order to ensure the students'
involvement and progress in the general curriculum. In addition, in some
cases, needed supplementary aids and services and program modifications
and supports were included in the IEP only after the services were
available to the student.

In one district, two general education teachers and one special
education teacher reported that special education teachers develop all
of the supplementary aids and services and program modifications and
supports for school personnel outside of the IEP process and give them
to the general education teachers who do not provide any input into
their development. A building administrator in a high school visited by
OSEP stated that the lack of support for general education teachers was
a major barrier to providing services to students with disabilities in
the least restrictive environment. A general education teacher stated
that the system is not effective in ensuring that students with
disabilities receive supplementary aids and services and program
modifications and supports for school personnel that they need to be
successful in the general curriculum. The teachers reported that the
case manager provides general education teachers with a list of
supports, accommodations and modifications that students with
disabilities need to progress in the general curriculum, but there is
never any discussion or monitoring by the case manager to ensure that
the students are getting the listed supports, accommodations and program
modifications. Furthermore, due to confidentiality restrictions that are
not part of federal requirements but, rather, are set by the school
administration for accessing the files of students with disabilities,
only special education teachers can view the special education records,
thereby limiting access to information important to assist general
education teachers in providing program modifications and supports and
ensuring that students with disabilities receive needed supplementary
aids and services. Both general education teachers added that there are
not enough supports for general education teachers to ensure that the
child is involved and progresses in the general curriculum.

In a second district, six general and special education teachers and two
building administrators reported that there is no coordination between
special education and general education teachers. Needed supplementary
aids and services and program modifications and supports for school
personnel for students with disabilities are not provided in the general
education classroom. The result is that students with disabilities must
be successful in the general education classroom without supplementary
aids and services or program modifications and supports, or be pulled
out to receive special education services in a segregated setting. Based
on interviews with two special education teachers, three regular
education teachers, and two administrators, appropriate supplementary
aids and services identified in IEPs are not provided for students to be
successful in regular education classes.

In a third district, four general education teachers reported that they
were unaware of which students in their classes were students with
disabilities and what accommodations, modifications and supports were in
their IEPs. In many cases, these teachers reported that they were
unaware of the students' goals, objectives, accommodations,
modifications, and supports until the end of the first semester after
they had already failed classes. In addition, two building
administrators and two special educators stated that the general
education teachers need training on inclusion and using accommodations,
modifications, and supports in the classroom. Providing effective staff
development is a constant challenge because of the high staff turnover
rate.

In a fourth district, three regular education and three special
education teachers reported that the lack of training for general
education teachers in accommodations, modifications, and supplementary
aides and services was negatively affecting the ability of special
education students to function in a regular education setting. Staff
development in these areas had not been provided.

3.  **Inadequate Opportunity for Children with Disabilities to be
    Involved and Progress in the General Curriculum**

A public agency is required to provide special education and related
services that meet the unique needs of each child with a disability. 34
CFR §300.26(b)(3) defines specially designed instruction as adapting the
content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique
needs of the child that result from the child's disability; and to
ensure access of the child to the general curriculum, so that he or she
can meet the educational standards that apply to all children. 34 CFR
§300.347 requires that the content of the IEP include how the child's
disability affects the child's involvement and progress in the general
curriculum, a statement of annual goals related to meeting the child's
needs that result from the child's disability to enable the child to be
involved and progress in the general curriculum, and a statement of
modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for
the child to be involved and progress in the general curriculum.

OSEP found through interviews with special education and general
education teachers, and building and district administrators, that
children with disabilities, especially those in substantially separate
placements, did not have access to the general curriculum. OSEP found in
two out of six districts visited, that removal of children with
disabilities from the general education environment impacts children
with disabilities by limiting their ability to be involved in and
progress in the general curriculum, and potentially to function in a
less restrictive setting.

Two district administrators in one district stated that the general
curriculum is based on new State content standards. Children with low
incidence disabilities are taught a community-based/functional
curriculum that was developed prior to the new HDE standards and are not
aligned with the new standards. Three special education teachers in one
school confirmed that students with disabilities in pullout classes or
substantially separate settings do not have a curriculum that is aligned
with the general education curriculum.

In a second district, special education teachers stated that there is no
established curriculum for students with disabilities in self-contained
classrooms. Students with disabilities in self-contained classes do not
follow the general curriculum. The result is that students with
disabilities may not have the future opportunity to participate in the
general curriculum with nondisabled peers because they have not been
taught content required to be successful in the general curriculum.

4.  **Lack of Participation For Students With Disabilities in District
    and Statewide Assessments**

34 CFR §300.138 requires that children with disabilities be included in
general State and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate
accommodations and modifications in administration, if necessary. In
addition, the State must develop guidelines and alternate assessments
for those children who cannot participate in Statewide assessments, and
conduct those assessments by July 1, 2000. In implementing the
requirements of 34 CFR §300.138, HDE is required to make available and
report to the public information on the number of children participating
in regular and alternate assessments, and the performance results on
alternate assessments ([See]{.underline} 34 CFR §300.139).

OSEP found that, although HDE had developed and trained some district
personnel on administering alternate assessments and modifications and
accommodations to regular assessments, HDE had not effectively ensured
that the requirements in 34 CFR §§300.138-300.139 were being
implemented. HDE had not yet conducted the alternate assessment when
OSEP visited in February of 2001. HDE officials explained that alternate
assessment procedures and guidelines were developed, training was
conducted, and data collection on student performance in the third grade
was planned for the 2000-2001 school year. However, full implementation
and reporting on the number of children taking the alternate assessment
and their performance results were a year behind the schedule required
under Part B. HDE officials explained that the reason for the delay was
that the earlier version of the alternate assessment, which took time to
develop, was rejected because it was not aligned with the State's
performance standards. Extra time was needed to develop the alternate
assessment, which is now aligned with Hawaii's Content Performance
Standards.

Students with disabilities in the four districts did not always have the
opportunity to participate in regular assessments with appropriate
modifications and accommodations or alternate assessments because of
inconsistent implementation of HDE's Statewide assessment procedures. In
one district, all staff interviewed reported confusion about how
Statewide assessments, including alternate assessments, were to be
administered. Three special education teachers who had training from HDE
indicated that they were unsure of reporting requirements. As a result,
these children's performance was not reported as required by 34 CFR
§300.139(a).

In a second district, two building administrators, one who is
responsible for the district coordination of Statewide assessment,
reported that low functioning students were exempt from the testing.
None of the special education teachers interviewed in this district, who
would be responsible for implementing the alternate assessment,
understood the process for conducting alternate assessments.

In a third district, several teachers had received training from HDE on
alternate assessments. However, they expressed a limited understanding
of who would take the alternate assessment, procedures for administering
an alternate assessment, and reporting scores. For example, a special
education building administrator stated that some teachers went for
training but they were still unsure of permissible adaptations and who
would be eligible to take the test. Another special education teacher
reported that the basis for exempting students with disabilities from
taking the test is whether the child with a disability attends a regular
class, not the child's ability to take the test. Another special
education teacher reported that there is no alternate test for students
with disabilities who are exempted.

In a fourth district, all staff interviewed were aware that HDE had
developed procedures for alternate assessments but stated that they had
not received training and were unsure what procedures should be used.

## B. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN

1.  **Improving In-service Training Through District Onsite Activities**

Personnel at all levels in school districts that OSEP visited expressed
the need for more effective utilization of HDE resources, especially for
training activities. For example, in one district, a principal and two
district administrators reported that only 19 of the 42 special educator
positions assigned to a school OSEP visited were certified. This creates
a need for major training activities. The problem that staff reported
with receiving adequate training is that most activities are conducted
in Honolulu. This is expensive and limits the number of teachers and
staff from the districts that can participate. Students are affected
because staff is gone from the classroom for longer periods of time to
travel to Honolulu. Other school staff stated that State resource staff
seldom come to their island and, therefore, have no knowledge about the
needs and environment of the schools. District personnel suggested that
State staff conduct the majority of the workshop and training activities
on the individual islands rather than have school staff come to them in
Honolulu.

2.  **Provision of Services to Preschool Children Entering Part B**

Under Part B, HDE is required to ensure that eligible children with
disabilities receive a free appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment at age three. OSEP was informed that in some of
the remote island sites, placement options were limited and preschool
children with disabilities were not always being identified and served.
For example, two building administrators and a special education teacher
reported that parents and children receiving Part C services were
responsible for going to the elementary school, when their children
turned three, to pick up the forms necessary to make an initial referral
for special education services. School officials expressed concern that
eligible children were not receiving preschool services because parents
did not always follow through with the referral.

In two districts, preschool programs were typically housed in elementary
schools. These programs tended to be self-contained with some limited
opportunities for integration through Headstart. In other instances,
preschool programs had to be located in elementary schools that were not
at capacity and distant from children's homes. The result is that
parents are reluctant to have their children transported relatively long
distances and opt out of receiving special education services. It is
suggested the HDE reexamine district services, especially in the remote
areas of Hawaii, to determine if districts are able to meet their
responsibility of providing services to preschool children with
disabilities.

# VIII. PART B: SECONDARY TRANSITION

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

## Validation Planning and Data Collection

During the Validation Planning phase, OSEP gathered information from
Hawaii's Part B Self-assessment, public input meetings, and the Hawaii
Part B Steering Committee. Focus questions asked at public input
meetings included the following: *"Describe the planning process that
takes place for students aged 14 and older to ensure a successful
transition to work, independent living, or additional education services
(e.g. college, technical school)? Are students receiving the services
needed?"* OSEP examined additional data from parent advocacy groups and
HDE records. The following areas of concern were identified: 1)
transition plans are not always implemented; 2) students with
disabilities are not always receiving the job readiness skills required
for admission to the State's vocation and rehabilitation program; 3)
staff is not available or do not have the training required to identify
linkages to other agencies and programs; and 4) parents must have
knowledge of and request transition services before they are identified
or provided.

HDE's Self-assessment in the area of secondary transition is based on
the Steering Committee's review of the State monitoring reports, the
Vocational Rehabilitation work-study program, the Hawaii Vocation
Education Preparation Program, Goodwill, and other Federally funded
programs such as the Ocean of Potentiality which targets youths with
disabilities in Hawaii to prepare them for careers in science, math,
engineering and technology. According to the Self-assessment, there
appears to be an increase in the participation of students and agencies
in the transition planning process and numerous commendations at the
district, school, class, and student levels for the provision of
transition services. As reported in the Self-assessment, partnerships
have been established with institutions of higher education, the
Departments of Vocational Rehabilitation, and Labor and Industrial
Relations to promote the provision of transition services to students
with disabilities.

As reflected in its 1995 monitoring report, OSEP found that HDE did not
meet its responsibility to ensure that: all required participants,
including the outside agency representative likely to be responsible for
providing or paying for transition services, are invited to attend and
participate in the IEP meetings for children with disabilities age 16 or
older.

To investigate the concerns identified during the Validation Planning
process, OSEP: collected information from the review of children's
records, from State and district policies and procedures and from
interviews of State personnel, district program administrators,
teachers, and parents; reviewed HDE's analysis of its Self-assessment
and OSEP's 1995 HDE monitoring report to note previous findings;
analyzed the data; and identified the following areas of strengths, and
areas of noncompliance.

## A. STRENGTHS

1.  **Career Pathways Software**

A software program to assist in the development of a career path for
students with disabilities is used in some schools to promote the IEP
secondary transition goals and objectives. This process begins when the
student enters seventh grade and at the end of the eighth grade a
meeting is held with the students' parents in order to identify courses
needed by the student during his/her 9-12^th^ grade years in order to
promote the selected career path.

2.  **School-To-Work Opportunities**

This State-level initiative has produced the following resources:

-   Staff development opportunities focusing on career curriculum,
    career exploration programs, and school-to-work teaching strategies;
    and

-   A school-to-Work resource guide that provides information on a
    collaboration project between various State departments and HDE.
    This guide also addresses school-to-work transition and school to
    adult life transition. A bookmark outlining the rights of students
    upon reaching the age of majority is included in the guide.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1.  **Failure to Include Statement of Needed Transition Services
    Beginning at Age 16 (or younger if appropriate)**

34 CFR §300.347 (b) (2) requires that, for each student beginning at age
16 (or younger, if determined appropriate by the IEP team), the IEP must
include a statement of needed transition services for the student. OSEP
found that due to the lack of personnel and/or availability of services,
transition services were not always addressed in the IEP for these
students.

In one district, special educators and administrators reported to OSEP
that schools have access to a software program to assist in the
development of a career path for students with disabilities. However,
when the transition coordinator position became vacant, the software
program was not utilized. School counselors and special education
teachers assigned to meet student transition needs using the software
were unable to do so because of their other, primary responsibilities.
As a result, students did not receive needed transition services. In
this district, transition goals and objectives in the IEP had not been
addressed for over a year.

In another district, OSEP was told that transition services are not
included in IEPs unless they are available, regardless of student needs.
Transition services to address daily living skills were the services
most often unavailable. Two special education teachers reported that
transition goals and objectives to address daily living skills were not
listed in the IEP until "we have that option available. As we are able
to get a service outside the school, we put those services as goals and
objectives in the IEP." The teachers went on to explain that, "The
transition coordinator told us that if we put the goals and objectives
in the IEP, then the district must ensure that the services are
provided." Also, transition services to prepare students to move to
integrated employment were not always available for students who need
those services. Four special education teachers stated that although
transition goals and objectives can be written in the IEP, the staff is
unable to carry out the goals and objectives due to a lack of sufficient
personnel and work placements and experiences for students.

2.  **Lack of Participation of Agency Representatives in Transition
    Planning**

To facilitate the student's movement to post-school activities, the
public agency must invite a representative of any agency that is likely
to be providing or paying for any of the transition services for the
student to the IEP meeting to participate in the planning of transition
services. If the representative does not attend, the public agency shall
take other steps to obtain the participation of the agency in the
transition planning process. ([See]{.underline} 34 CFR §300.344(b)).

Consistent with OSEP's previous monitoring finding from 1995, OSEP found
that representatives of agencies that were likely to be responsible for
providing or paying for transition services, were not, in all cases,
invited to attend meetings where transition services would be
considered. HDE's district transition coordinators are responsible for
ensuring that representatives of agencies that are likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for transition services are invited
to attend IEP meetings. OSEP reviewed seven IEPs, in one district, that
addressed transition services provided by an outside agency. Six of the
seven files documented that the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
would be contacted to address needed transition services from an outside
agency; however, these contacts were not made by the school staff to
ensure that the representatives would be invited to attend the meeting
where transition services were discussed. In two of the districts
visited where there are no transition coordinators, special education
teachers were assigned the responsibility for arranging IEP meetings
with the required outside agency to address needed transition services.
Five special education teachers reported that they are held responsible
for contacting the agencies and are provided with a list of contact
agencies that can provide transition linkages for students. However,
they stated that because of their teaching obligations, they were unable
to follow through to ensure agency representation at the meetings.

OSEP also found that districts do not take additional steps to ensure
the participation of outside agencies in the planning of transition
services when they do not attend IEP meetings where transition services
will be discussed and the provision of transition services will be the
responsibility of the outside agency. In two districts, seven special
education teachers and an administrator reported that representatives
from outside agencies rarely come to IEP meetings when invited or
provide input in other ways because of time constraints and scheduling.
As a result of this practice, needed transition services, that are to be
provided by outside agencies, are not addressed on the IEP.

# IX. PART B: GENERAL SUPERVISION

IDEA assigns responsibility to State education agencies for ensuring
that its requirements are met and that all educational programs for
children with disabilities, including all such programs administered by
any other agency in the State, 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. 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.
Effective general supervision promotes positive student outcomes by
promoting appropriate educational services to children with
disabilities, ensuring the successful and timely correction of
identified deficiencies, and providing personnel who work with children
with disabilities the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to carry
out their assigned responsibilities.

**[Validation Planning and Data Collection]{.underline}**

In order to evaluate issues that may impact Part B special education
programs in Hawaii, OSEP reviewed its 1995 onsite monitoring report of
HDE's implementation of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (Part B). The report found that HDE did not consistently
meet its responsibility to ensure that: 1) a representative of any other
outside agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying
for transition services was invited to IEP meetings where transition
services for a student was considered; 2) parents received a full
explanation of all procedural safeguards available to them under Part B;
and 3) that HDE facilitated efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain
qualified personnel.

During the Validation Planning phase, OSEP also gathered information
from HDE's Part B Self-assessment, the Part B State Steering Committee,
and public input meetings. Parents, educators, service providers, and
other stakeholders throughout Hawaii attended public input meetings. One
focus question asked during the public input meetings was: "*How is HDE
involved in assuring that appropriate services are provided to students
with disabilities, e.g., monitoring, training, technical assistance?"*
OSEP reviewed additional data from parent advocacy groups and HDE
personnel, and OSEP records. Based on this information, OSEP identified
the following areas of concern: 1) lack of interagency coordination
leading to delays in the provision of appropriate services; 2) lack of
general supervision of out-of-district placements and State operated
programs; 3) complaint investigation and due process hearing timelines
are not met; 4) the complaint management system is not effective in
identifying systemic issues; 5) suspension/ expulsion data is
incomplete; 6) drop out rates are disproportionately high for students
in special education as compared to general education students; 7)
guidance on policies and procedures is inconsistent; 8) HDE's
organizational structures and decision-making process are seen as a
barrier to timely delivery of appropriate services; 9) not all districts
are implementing the requirements of IDEA '97; and 10) Statewide
initiatives are not always implemented at the school level.

HDE's Self-assessment focused on the following areas: 1) monitoring and
compliance mechanisms; 2) interagency coordination; 3) provision of
services to children in adult and juvenile correctional facilities; and
4) out-of-district placements. According to the Self-assessment, parents
are informed of their procedural safeguards. HDE identified the need to
improve its system for coordinating various data collection activities
and using available data in reform efforts, i.e., incorporating data
from complaint investigations and due process hearing decisions into the
monitoring decision-making process. HDE's Self-assessment also indicated
that complaint investigations and due process hearings exceed required
timelines and that out-of-district placements needed to be monitored.
HDE's Self-assessment indicated that efforts to strengthen interagency
coordination, including determination of fiscal responsibility needs to
be ongoing. Results of a parent survey conducted by the Learning
Disabilities Association of Hawaii revealed that 30% of respondents feel
that such issues as payment disputes result in a lack of provision of
services in a timely manner. Timely provision of services remains a
compliance concern. In order to provide more information to parents and
teachers regarding memoranda of agreements between the Department of
Health and the Department of Education, guides were being written which
will list responsibilities for each Department. HDE's parent survey
revealed that 30% of the parent respondents believed that their children
were receiving appropriate special education services as compared to
39.5% of the parents who believed that the appropriate services were not
provided. Finally, HDE's Self-assessment points out that out-of-school
youth with disabilities in juvenile and adult correctional facilities
are referred for evaluation, provided mental health services, and are
represented by surrogate parents. Transition plans are in place and
included in an exit or parole plan.

To investigate the issues identified through the Validation Planning
process, OSEP collected data from school districts across Hawaii,
interviewed parent groups, and obtained information at HDE's
administrative office relative to HDE's responsibility to ensure that
all education programs for children with disabilities meet both Part B
requirements and State education standards. Analysis of the data
collected resulted in identification of the following areas of strength,
areas of noncompliance and suggestion for improvement.

## A. STRENGTHS

1.  **Development of a Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process**

Hawaii's newly developed monitoring system, *Hawaii State Special
Education Collaborative Monitoring: A Continuous Improvement Process of
Monitoring and Accountability* is intended to "identify, promote, and
support best practices, ensure program effectiveness and enforce legal
requirements and measure results of corrective actions." The new
monitoring system is intended to balance process (procedural compliance)
and outcomes (improved student results). Therefore, it purports to test
how well individual students are doing and evaluate the student's
support system, as well as determine compliance with IDEA '97 and
requirements under Chapter 56 of Hawaii's Administrative Rules including
all such requirements that are linked to positive student outcomes.
Transition to the new monitoring system is still in progress with the
major emphasis on aligning HDE's special education monitoring with HDE's
accountability plan (the Standards Implementation Design (SID) System).
This proposed monitoring system has the potential to incorporate into
one system, compliance monitoring and improved results for children with
disabilities within the context of Hawaii's standards-based education
reform.

2.  **Development of the Integrated Special Education System (ISPED)
    Database**

The Hawaii State Legislature approved funding for the development of an
integrated database system, ISPED, to track each student's case from
intake through the evaluation of services needed, the services provided,
reporting and the management of appeals. In its Self-assessment, HDE
identified the need to coordinate various data collection activities
including complaint and due process hearing decisions with its
compliance monitoring system to effectively carry out its general
supervisory responsibilities. This database has the potential to enhance
HDE's general supervision over all educational programs for children
with disabilities in the State, including ensuring that those programs
meet the requirements of IDEA. The system is comprised of six processing
modules that include request for assistance, evaluation, eligibility,
IEP generation, services and due process. Each of these modules
facilitates data collection from multiple participants and minimizes
redundancy. This system has the potential to automate the record keeping
for all Department processes involved in evaluation, eligibility
determinations, and service provision to special education students.

## B. AREAS OF NONCOMPLIANCE

1.  **Lack of Effective Methods for Identifying and Correcting
    Deficiencies in Programs Providing Services to Children With
    Disabilities**

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. One method that the State must
utilize to ensure its general supervision over educational programs to
children with disabilities is the effective utilization of a monitoring
system. Based on data from OSEP's Validation Planning and Validation
Data Collection visits, OSEP finds that HDE has not yet implemented a
monitoring system that is effective in identifying and correcting
noncompliance with all Part B requirements that are linked to positive
student outcomes. OSEP found limitations with both HDE's Compliance
Monitoring Review and Felix Monitoring, for ensuring that certain
requirements under Part B linked to positive student outcomes, are met.
HDE Officials stated that HDE's Compliance Monitoring Review focus on
procedural compliance did not ensure effective school practices and
improved student results. State officials also expressed concerns to
OSEP about the comprehensiveness of the Felix Monitoring system, which
evaluates system effectiveness and student performance, for general
supervision purposes. Further, OSEP confirmed that information from
Felix Monitoring and data from due process hearings and complaints were
not integrated into the State's monitoring of Part B[^3].

######## *Background and Description of Monitoring System in Hawaii*

As described in the Introduction to this report, Hawaii has been
functioning under the U.S. District Court Felix Consent Decree since
1994. This has significantly affected the focus and allocation of
resources for all educational programs across the State. At the time of
OSEP's visit, Hawaii reported that it monitored compliance with Part B
requirements through two parallel monitoring systems: 1) the Felix
Monitoring required under the Felix Consent Decree for Felix class
members; and 2) the Compliance Monitoring Review administered through
HDE's Special Education Section. Felix Monitoring is described as a
performance-based system designed to evaluate system-wide change and
assess program outcomes in order to achieve full compliance with IDEA,
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Felix Consent Decree.
Compliance is assessed based on quantitative indicators of performance
such as the percentage of students with disabilities suspended compared
to general education students, percentage of certified special education
teachers, and over and under-representation of students with
disabilities by ethnicity, as well as qualitative outcomes to determine
whether there is evidence that the system is performing on behalf of
each student. The qualitative review, called Service Testing, assesses
the quality of services and programs being provided to determine if
school activities and programs are meeting sampled children's needs with
positive results, and if teachers and providers are working in a
coordinated manner to deliver agreed upon services.

HDE's Special Education Section implemented the Compliance Monitoring
Review system through a contract provider in order to assess district
compliance with procedural requirements of Part B, for the years 1997
through 2000. At the time of OSEP's visit, HDE had completed its
three-year monitoring cycle for all seven districts using this process.
The process included a self-review by administrators and teachers.
Monitors reviewed randomly selected student files and interviewed
teachers and other district-level special education staff. Information
from interviews and parent surveys was reported back to the district as
feedback in the form of commendations and recommendations, but was not
used to make or support compliance determinations. Compliance
determinations were based solely on file reviews, and corrective actions
were designed to address missing file information. An HDE official,
responsible for compliance monitoring, informed OSEP that the reviews
addressed all the requirements of IDEA as amended in 1997, as of
February of 2000.

OSEP reviewed HDE's monitoring system to assess its effectiveness in
ensuring compliance with certain Part B requirements linked to positive
student outcomes for students with disabilities who were not members of
the Felix class. According to State education officials, students with
disabilities outside the Felix class represent more than half of the
total population of children with disabilities in Hawaii. At the time of
OSEP's visit, approximately 9,500 were members of the Felix class and
23,000 were IDEA eligible. OSEP was informed through public input that
the Felix Consent Decree affected [all]{.underline} children with
disabilities to some degree even those who were not members of the Felix
class, through its impact on overall system effectiveness. Therefore,
OSEP selected districts that HDE monitored using the Compliance
Monitoring Review and complexes[^4] that were evaluated through Felix
Monitoring to determine if Hawaii's monitoring system was effective in
identifying and correcting noncompliance with Part B requirements. OSEP
reviewed 70 files of students with disabilities who were not Felix class
members, visited 18 schools in 6 districts and interviewed special
education and general education teachers, related services providers and
building and district administrators on those files. Children with
disabilities who were not members of the Felix class were selected to
ensure that HDE was able to identify and correct noncompliance with Part
B requirements for IDEA eligible children, even if the children were not
members of the Felix class.

As mentioned in Section VII of this Report, during OSEP's monitoring,
HDE officials expressed, through the Self-assessment and in interviews
with OSEP, a keen awareness of the many areas in which they are not
meeting the identified needs of students with disabilities and
compliance with Part B requirements linked to positive student outcomes
that they have failed to correct. Systemic issues affecting compliance
and positive results for students with disabilities were well documented
in reports to the Felix Court Monitor at the time of OSEP's monitoring,
and understood by Department officials throughout the education system
in Hawaii. Primary among the issues was the chronic shortage of
qualified personnel. Hawaii has dedicated substantial resources and has
put forth impressive human effort over the course of the Felix Consent
decree to address this problem, including rigorous recruitment
activities both on and off the island, and yet personnel issues still
account for the many areas of noncompliance OSEP identified.

For example, OSEP found that in four districts, students were either not
receiving the services in their IEPs because of insufficient numbers of
qualified staff to implement the IEPs, or did not have a statement of
needed services in their IEPs because the services were unavailable.
(See Section VII and Section VIII of this Report.) HDE's Compliance
Monitoring did not find that special education and related services were
not provided according to student IEPs, and although HDE identified
noncompliance in all four of these districts because files had "missing
statements of related services to be provided to the child or on behalf
of the child," the recommended correction for the finding was to provide
in-service training on the new requirements of IDEA'97. One of the
districts included a complex that OSEP visited which at the time, had
achieved provisional compliance under the Felix monitoring process. The
Felix monitoring report for this complex included a statement of the
need to continue to improve the percentage of certified teachers in the
schools. HDE officials and local administrators interviewed by OSEP
cited the litigious environment of the special education system and
non-competitive salaries as barriers to teacher recruitment, and
distance and isolation as barriers to retaining teachers recruited from
the mainland.

As discussed in Section VIII of this Report, OSEP found that districts
did not always take steps to obtain the participation of another agency
that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition
services that was invited to send a representative to the IEP meeting.
OSEP identified this issue in a complex that had achieved full
compliance under Felix. Further, HDE's Compliance Monitoring Review did
not identify this issue. In two districts where OSEP found that that
they do not always invite a representative of any agency likely to be
responsible for providing or paying for transition, the complexes that
OSEP visited in these districts failed to obtain compliance under Felix.
HDE did not identify this issue through its Compliance Monitoring Review
process in one of the districts. Although HDE identified this issue in
the second district, and received the district's corrective action plan
in May of 2000, the issue was not corrected by the time of OSEP's visit.
OSEP also found that IEPs did not always contain statements of needed
transition services. Both complexes that OSEP visited in this district
required a "total revisit" under the Felix system because they did not
meet Felix compliance standards. Although HDE had identified
noncompliance with this requirement in the same district and ordered
corrective actions, a State education official explained that HDE did
not plan to follow-up when the district failed to submit a corrective
action plan in February of 2001, because the district had so many
requirements to meet under Felix. HDE officials explained that
continuing noncompliance with these requirements is the result of an
inadequate supply of qualified personnel.

OSEP also found that HDE did not always follow-up to ensure
implementation of corrective actions. Participants in the public input
meetings consistently told OSEP that HDE did not follow-up with
districts to ensure implementation of corrective actions. An HDE
official responsible for monitoring explained to OSEP that districts
must address monitoring report recommendations by submitting an
improvement plan within two months of receiving the monitoring report.
For example, as a result of HDE's monitoring report in one district, the
district submitted a plan with three goals to support compliance,
including training sessions, tools for documenting compliance, and
monitoring strategies. Activities are verified through training
calendars, sign-in sheets and form development. HDE does not conduct
follow-up monitoring to make sure that these activities once
implemented, result in compliance and improved results for students with
disabilities.

2.  **Decisions in Complaint Investigations Not Resolved Within
    Timelines or Enforced**

Consistent with 34 CFR §300.600, HDE is required to ensure that each
educational program for children with disabilities in the State is under
the general supervision of the State education agency. One mechanism to
ensure HDE's general supervision is the complaint management system.
Sections 300.660 through 300.662 require HDE to adopt written procedures
for resolving any complaint that alleges a violation of Part B and that
a written decision is issued within 60-days from the date a complaint is
filed. OSEP found through interviews with HDE personnel and a review of
HDE records that HDE was unable to demonstrate that it had an effective
complaint management system.

OSEP was informed that prior to July 2000, the Felix Complaints
Resolution Office handled Part B complaints. In the Self-assessment, HDE
officials reported to OSEP that complaints addressed through the Felix
Complaints Office did not meet Part B requirements. For example, under
this system, corrective actions were not required and 60-day timelines
for resolving complaints were not being met. Although HDE's Special
Education Section began managing Part B complaints in July 1, 2000, HDE
was unable to demonstrate that complaints were being resolved in a
timely manner. Complaint specialists with HDE stated that there were
still problems with resolving complaints within the 60-day timeline
because written decisions were delayed awaiting approval of the format,
and problems in meeting the timeframe for getting reports to the
Superintendent for signature. At the time of OSEP's visit, officials in
HDE's Special Education Section were required to complete the
investigation and report within 45 days in order to allow 15 days for
the Superintendent to receive and sign the reports. They explained that
this timeline was difficult to meet because of the monitors' multiple
assignments.

HDE officials reported to OSEP that the most frequent State complaints
they receive are that services and accommodations in the IEP are not
provided. Regardless, steps were not taken to ensure that corrective
actions ordered as a result of State complaint investigations were
implemented. HDE officials explained that the Felix Complaints
Resolution Office which managed a majority of the Part B complaints made
recommendations to school districts to resolve the complaints and made
follow-up calls, but did not require them to take corrective action when
appropriate.

3.  **Decisions in Due Process Hearings Not Reached Within 45 Days and
    No Mechanism for Enforcement**

As set forth under 34 CFR §300.511, HDE must ensure that no later than
45 days after the receipt of a request for a hearing, a final decision
is reached and a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties,
although a hearing officer may grant specific extensions of time beyond
45 days at the request of either party. In addition, 34 CFR §300.600
requires that HDE ensure that due process hearing decisions are
implemented.

OSEP finds that HDE did not ensure that hearing decisions were reached
within 45 days from the receipt of request. OSEP analyzed due process
hearing logs provided by HDE over a two-year time period, from 1998 to
2000. Of 221 requests for hearings over this period 94 exceeded the
45-day timeline, and did not have specific extensions of the timeline.
Decisions rendered beyond the 45-day timeline in these cases were seen
at 150 days, 166 days, 211 and 250 days. One case, still pending on the
date the log was printed had already exceeded the timeline by 10 months.
Several cases pending at the time the log was printed already exceeded
100 days past the due date. In another case, it was one year before a
decision was issued, with no extension. Many of the cases that exceeded
the 45-day timeline showed pre-hearing conferences and hearings
scheduled for dates that were already beyond the 45 days.

OSEP also finds that HDE has no method of monitoring the implementation
of due process hearing decisions and takes no action to ensure that due
process hearing decisions are implemented. HDE officials reported to
OSEP that while a system was being developed to follow-up on hearing
decisions in order to monitor their enforcement, it was not a current
practice.

## C. SUGGESTION FOR IMPROVED RESULTS FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

**Training and Technical Assistance**

A basic component of the State education agency's general supervisory
responsibility over all educational programs for children with
disabilities in the State, includes not just monitoring, and enforcement
when noncompliance is not corrected, but also effective technical
assistance that focuses on best practice designed to improve the
substantive content and results of special education.

As presented in Section VII of this Report, OSEP found that all
personnel who work with children with disabilities did not always have
the skills and knowledge necessary to meet their needs. Administrators
and teachers reported that they have limited access to inservice
training. HDE officials explained that barriers to inservice training
include funding cuts in staff development, lack of support from building
principals, and insufficient funds to pay substitute teachers to cover
classes while teachers attend training. Building administrators and
teachers from one district reported to OSEP that they are unable to
access training sites because most training is conducted on Oahu and
travel is prohibitive because of cost and time. HDE informed OSEP that
memos on the Part B regulations were sent to all districts and schools,
and training on Hawaii's Chapter 56 regulations was conducted in all
districts. However, as demonstrated in Section VII of the Report, OSEP
still found that teachers and administrators were either unaware of
their responsibilities or did not know how to implement needed
accommodations and modifications for students with disabilities to be
successful in regular education settings, or to provide students with
disabilities placed in self-contained classrooms, instruction in the
general education curriculum. OSEP also found that although most school
personnel were aware that an alternate assessment existed, they were
unclear about guidelines for participation, and procedures for
administration and scoring.

OSEP recommends that HDE with its Steering Committee review the barriers
that result in the training issues described above, and develop
strategies to overcome them. OSEP also encourages HDE to continue to
increase the capacity of educators in meeting the needs of children with
disabilities through support from Hawaii's State Improvement Grant
Program.

[^1]: The Office of the Auditor, in its January 2001 report, [Follow up
    Review of the State's Efforts to Comply with the Felix Consent
    Decree: A Report to the Governor and the Legislature of the State of
    Hawaii]{.underline}, found that Hawaii does not have a working
    definition of the *Felix* class and proposes that the class include
    children age 0 to 20 who require special education **or** mental
    health services as a result of several disabling conditions and
    performance indicators. This definition varies from the definition
    HDE officials and Felix monitors provided to OSEP which states that
    membership includes those children with disabilities under IDEA and
    Section 504 who are in need of mental health services. School
    administrators, teachers and parents all expressed confusion over
    which children with disabilities under IDEA were eligible under
    Felix and which children were not eligible.

[^2]: As defined by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a medical home
    is an approach to providing health care services in a high-quality
    and cost-effective manner. Children and their families who have a
    medical home receive the care they need from a pediatrician or
    physician whom they trust. The pediatric health care professionals
    and parents act as partners to identify and access all needed
    medical and non-medical services to help children and their families
    achieve their maximum potential.

[^3]: HDE included in its self-assessment a statement that findings from
    complaint investigations and due process hearings were not
    "routinely" incorporated into their monitoring system, and that
    "steps were being taken toward that end."

[^4]: A complex is composed of a high school and the intermediate/
    middle and elementary schools that feed into it.