+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| **Monitoring         | **Status of APR         | **OSEP              |
| Priorities and       | Data/SPP Revision       | Analysis/Next       |
| Indicators**         | Issues**                | Steps**             |
+======================+=========================+=====================+
| 1.  Percent of youth | The State revised the   | OSEP appreciates    |
|     with IEPs        | baseline and targets    | the State's efforts |
|     graduating from  | for this indicator in   | to improve          |
|     high school with | its SPP and OSEP        | performance.        |
|     a regular        | accepts those           |                     |
|     diploma compared | revisions. The new      |                     |
|     to percent of    | targets were made more  |                     |
|     all youth in the | rigorous.               |                     |
|     State graduating |                         |                     |
|     with a regular   | The State's FFY 2006    |                     |
|     diploma.         | reported data for this  |                     |
|                      | indicator are 62.8%.    |                     |
| \[Results            | These data represent    |                     |
| Indicator\]          | progress from the FFY   |                     |
|                      | 2005 baseline data of   |                     |
|                      | 61.7%.                  |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | The State met its       |                     |
|                      | revised FFY 2006 target |                     |
|                      | of 61.7%.               |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 2.  Percent of youth | The State revised the   | OSEP's June 15,     |
|     with IEPs        | targets for this        | 2007 FFY 2005       |
|     dropping out of  | indicator in its SPP    | SPP/APR response    |
|     high school      | and OSEP accepts those  | table required the  |
|     compared to the  | revisions. The new      | State to include in |
|     percent of all   | targets were made more  | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
|     youth in the     | rigorous.               | due February 1,     |
|     State dropping   |                         | 2008, progress data |
|     out of high      | The State's FFY 2006    | for FFY 2005 and    |
|     school.          | reported data for this  | FFY 2006. The State |
|                      | indicator are 5.8%.     | provided the        |
| \[Results            | These data represent    | required            |
| Indicator\]          | slippage from the FFY   | information.        |
|                      | 2005 data of 5.1%.      |                     |
|                      |                         | OSEP looks forward  |
|                      | The State did not meet  | to the State's data |
|                      | its FFY 2006 revised    | demonstrating       |
|                      | target of 5.6%.         | improvement in      |
|                      |                         | performance in the  |
|                      |                         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      |                         | February 1, 2009.   |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 3\. Participation    | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP appreciates    |
| and performance of   | reported data for this  | the State's efforts |
| children with        | indicator are 41.4% for | to improve          |
| disabilities on      | English Language Arts   | performance and     |
| statewide            | and 43.6% for math.     | looks forward to    |
| assessments:         |                         | the State's data    |
|                      | These data represent    | demonstrating       |
| A. Percent of        | progress from the FFY   | improvement in      |
| districts that have  | 2005 data of 25% for    | performance in the  |
| a disability         | English Language Arts   | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
| subgroup that meets  | and progress from the   | February 1, 2009.   |
| the State's minimum  | FFY 2005 data of 19%    |                     |
| "n" size meeting the | for math.               |                     |
| State's AYP          |                         |                     |
| objectives for       | The State did not meet  |                     |
| progress for         | its FFY 2006 target of  |                     |
| disability subgroup. | 45% for English         |                     |
|                      | Language Arts and met   |                     |
| \[Results            | its FFY 2006 target of  |                     |
| Indicator\]          | 37% for math.           |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 3\. Participation    | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP looks forward  |
| and performance of   | reported data for this  | to the State's data |
| children with        | indicator are 97.9% for | demonstrating       |
| disabilities on      | English Language Arts   | improvement in      |
| statewide            | and 97.7% for math.     | performance in the  |
| assessments:         |                         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      | These data represent    | February 1, 2009.   |
| B. Participation     | progress from the FFY   |                     |
| rate for children    | 2005 data of 97.6% for  |                     |
| with IEPs in a       | English Language Arts   |                     |
| regular assessment   | and remain unchanged    |                     |
| with no              | from the FFY 2005 data  |                     |
| accommodations;      | of 97.7% for math.      |                     |
| regular assessment   |                         |                     |
| with accommodations; | The State did not meet  |                     |
| alternate assessment | its FFY 2006 target of  |                     |
| against grade level  | 99% for English         |                     |
| standards; alternate | Language Arts and did   |                     |
| assessment against   | not meet its FFY 2006   |                     |
| alternate            | target of 99% for math. |                     |
| achievement          |                         |                     |
| standards.           |                         |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| \[Results            |                         |                     |
| Indicator\]          |                         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 3.  Participation    | The State revised the   | OSEP looks forward  |
|     and performance  | baseline and targets    | to the State's data |
|     of children with | for this indicator in   | demonstrating       |
|     disabilities on  | its SPP and OSEP        | improvement in      |
|     statewide        | accepts those           | performance in the  |
|     assessments:     | revisions. The new      | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      | targets were made more  | February 1, 2009.   |
| C. Proficiency rate  | rigorous.               |                     |
| for children with    |                         |                     |
| IEPs against grade   | The State's FFY 2006    |                     |
| level standards and  | reported data for this  |                     |
| alternate            | indicator are 66.7% for |                     |
| achievement          | English Language Arts   |                     |
| standards.           | and 54% for math.       |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| \[Results            | These data represent    |                     |
| Indicator\]          | progress from the       |                     |
|                      | revised FFY 2005 data   |                     |
|                      | of 64.8% for English    |                     |
|                      | Language Arts and       |                     |
|                      | progress from the       |                     |
|                      | revised FFY 2005 data   |                     |
|                      | of 51.5% for math.      |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | The State did not meet  |                     |
|                      | its FFY 2006 revised    |                     |
|                      | target of 85.4% for     |                     |
|                      | English Language Arts   |                     |
|                      | and did not meet its    |                     |
|                      | FFY 2006 revised target |                     |
|                      | of 76.5% for math.      |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 4\. Rates of         | The State revised the   | OSEP's June 15,     |
| suspension and       | baseline and targets    | 2007 FFY 2005       |
| expulsion:           | for this indicator in   | SPP/APR response    |
|                      | its SPP and OSEP        | table required the  |
| A. Percent of        | accepts those           | State to include in |
| districts identified | revisions. The new      | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| by the State as      | targets were made more  | due February 1,     |
| having a significant | rigorous.               | 2008, information   |
| discrepancy in the   |                         | that demonstrates   |
| rates of suspensions | The State's FFY 2006    | that it has adopted |
| and expulsions of    | reported data for this  | and used an         |
| children with        | indicator are .29%.     | appropriate method  |
| disabilities for     | OSEP was unable to      | of identifying      |
| greater than 10 days | determine whether there | significant         |
| in a school year;    | was progress or         | discrepancies among |
| and                  | slippage because the    | LEAs; and that when |
|                      | State changed its       | it identified       |
| \[Results            | definition of           | significant         |
| Indicator\]          | significant             | discrepancies, it   |
|                      | discrepancy.            | reviewed, and if    |
|                      |                         | appropriate,        |
|                      | The State did not meet  | revised (or         |
|                      | its FFY 2006 target of  | required the        |
|                      | 0%.                     | affected LEAs to    |
|                      |                         | revise) policies,   |
|                      |                         | practices and       |
|                      |                         | procedures relating |
|                      |                         | to each of the      |
|                      |                         | following topics:   |
|                      |                         | development and     |
|                      |                         | implementation of   |
|                      |                         | IEPs, the use of    |
|                      |                         | positive behavioral |
|                      |                         | interventions and   |
|                      |                         | supports, and       |
|                      |                         | procedural          |
|                      |                         | safeguards: (1) for |
|                      |                         | the five districts  |
|                      |                         | identified in FFY   |
|                      |                         | 2003; (2) for the   |
|                      |                         | six districts       |
|                      |                         | identified in FFY   |
|                      |                         | 2004; and (3) for   |
|                      |                         | the four districts  |
|                      |                         | identified in FFY   |
|                      |                         | 2005. The State     |
|                      |                         | provided the        |
|                      |                         | required            |
|                      |                         | information.        |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | OSEP looks forward  |
|                      |                         | to the State's data |
|                      |                         | demonstrating       |
|                      |                         | improvement in      |
|                      |                         | performance in the  |
|                      |                         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      |                         | February 1, 2009.   |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | In reporting on     |
|                      |                         | this indicator in   |
|                      |                         | the FFY 2007 APR,   |
|                      |                         | due February 1,     |
|                      |                         | 2009, the State     |
|                      |                         | must describe the   |
|                      |                         | results of the      |
|                      |                         | State\'s            |
|                      |                         | examination of data |
|                      |                         | from FFY 2007       |
|                      |                         | (2007-2008). In     |
|                      |                         | addition, the State |
|                      |                         | must describe the   |
|                      |                         | review, and if      |
|                      |                         | appropriate,        |
|                      |                         | revision, of        |
|                      |                         | policies,           |
|                      |                         | procedures and      |
|                      |                         | practices relating  |
|                      |                         | to the development  |
|                      |                         | and implementation  |
|                      |                         | of IEPs, the use of |
|                      |                         | positive behavioral |
|                      |                         | interventions and   |
|                      |                         | supports, and       |
|                      |                         | procedural          |
|                      |                         | safeguards to       |
|                      |                         | ensure compliance   |
|                      |                         | with the IDEA for   |
|                      |                         | the LEA identified  |
|                      |                         | with a significant  |
|                      |                         | discrepancy in FFY  |
|                      |                         | 2006.               |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 4\. Rates of         | Reporting on Indicator  |                     |
| suspension and       | 4B was not required for |                     |
| expulsion:           | the FFY 2006 APR.       |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| B. Percent of        |                         |                     |
| districts identified |                         |                     |
| by the State as      |                         |                     |
| having a significant |                         |                     |
| discrepancy in the   |                         |                     |
| rates of suspensions |                         |                     |
| and expulsions of    |                         |                     |
| greater than 10 days |                         |                     |
| in a school year of  |                         |                     |
| children with        |                         |                     |
| disabilities by race |                         |                     |
| and ethnicity.       |                         |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| \[Results            |                         |                     |
| Indicator\]          |                         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 5\. Percent of       | The State revised the   | OSEP appreciates    |
| children with IEPs   | targets for this        | the State's efforts |
| aged 6 through 21:   | indicator in its SPP    | to improve          |
|                      | and OSEP accepts those  | performance.        |
| A. Removed from      | revisions.              |                     |
| regular class less   |                         |                     |
| than 21% of the day; | The State's reported    |                     |
|                      | data for this indicator |                     |
| B. Removed from      | are:                    |                     |
| regular class        |                         |                     |
| greater than 60% of  |   ------------- -       |                     |
| the day; or          | ------ ------- -------- |                     |
|                      |                 F       |                     |
| C. Served in public  | FY     FFY     FFY 2006 |                     |
| or private separate  |                         |                     |
| schools, residential |  2005    2006    Target |                     |
| placements, or       |                         |                     |
| homebound or         |        Data    Data     |                     |
| hospital placements. |                         |                     |
|                      |   A. Removed            |                     |
| \[Results            |   49.1%   53%     43.4% |                     |
| Indicator\]          |   from re               |                     |
|                      | gular                   |                     |
|                      |   class l               |                     |
|                      | ess                     |                     |
|                      |   than 21               |                     |
|                      | % of                    |                     |
|                      |   the day               |                     |
|                      | .                       |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |   B. Removed            |                     |
|                      |   15.7%   15.3%   16.2% |                     |
|                      |   from re               |                     |
|                      | gular                   |                     |
|                      |   class g               |                     |
|                      | reater                  |                     |
|                      |   than 60               |                     |
|                      | % of                    |                     |
|                      |   the day               |                     |
|                      | .                       |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |   C. Served i           |                     |
|                      | n  6.7%    6.7%    6.8% |                     |
|                      |   public                |                     |
|                      | or                      |                     |
|                      |   private               |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |   separat               |                     |
|                      | e                       |                     |
|                      |   schools               |                     |
|                      | ,                       |                     |
|                      |   residen               |                     |
|                      | tial                    |                     |
|                      |   placeme               |                     |
|                      | nts,                    |                     |
|                      |   or home               |                     |
|                      | bound                   |                     |
|                      |   or hosp               |                     |
|                      | ital                    |                     |
|                      |   placeme               |                     |
|                      | nts.                    |                     |
|                      |   ------------- -       |                     |
|                      | ------ ------- -------- |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | These data represent    |                     |
|                      | progress in 5A and 5B   |                     |
|                      | and remain unchanged in |                     |
|                      | 5C from the FFY 2005    |                     |
|                      | data.                   |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | The State met its FFY   |                     |
|                      | 2006 revised targets.   |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 6\. Percent of       | Reporting on Indicator  |                     |
| preschool children   | 6 was not required for  |                     |
| with IEPs who        | the FFY 2006 APR.       |                     |
| received special     |                         |                     |
| education and        |                         |                     |
| related services in  |                         |                     |
| settings with        |                         |                     |
| typically developing |                         |                     |
| peers (i.e., early   |                         |                     |
| childhood settings,  |                         |                     |
| home, and part-time  |                         |                     |
| early                |                         |                     |
| childhood/part-time  |                         |                     |
| early childhood      |                         |                     |
| special education    |                         |                     |
| settings).           |                         |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| \[Results            |                         |                     |
| Indicator\]          |                         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 7\. Percent of       | The State's FFY 2006    | The State reported  |
| preschool children   | reported progress data  | the required        |
| with IEPs who        | for this indicator are: | progress data and   |
| demonstrate          |                         | improvement         |
| improved:            | <table                  | activities. The     |
|                      | style="width:100%;">    | State must provide  |
| A.  Positive         | <colgroup>              | progress data with  |
|     social-emotional | <col                    | the FFY 2007 APR,   |
|     skills           | style="width: 51%" />   | due February 1,     |
|     (including       | <col                    | 2009, and baseline  |
|     social           | style="width: 14%" />   | data and targets    |
|     relationships);  | <col                    | with the FFY 2008   |
|                      | style="width: 16%" />   | APR, due February   |
| B.  Acquisition and  | <col                    | 1, 2010.            |
|     use of knowledge | style="width: 17%" />   |                     |
|     and skills       | </colgroup>             |                     |
|     (including early | <thead>                 |                     |
|     language/        | <tr class="header">     |                     |
|     communication    | <th><p>06-07            |                     |
|     and early        | Preschool Outcome</p>   |                     |
|     literacy); and   | <p>Progress             |                     |
|                      | Data</p></th>           |                     |
| C.  Use of           | <th><blockquote>        |                     |
|     appropriate      | <p>Social</p>           |                     |
|     behaviors to     | <p>Emotional</p>        |                     |
|     meet their       | </blockquote></th>      |                     |
|     needs.           | <th><blockquote>        |                     |
|                      | <p>Knowledge</p>        |                     |
| \[Results Indicator; | <p>&amp; Skills</p>     |                     |
| New\]                | </blockquote></th>      |                     |
|                      | <th><blockquote>        |                     |
|                      | <p>Appropriate          |                     |
|                      | Behavior</p>            |                     |
|                      | </blockquote></th>      |                     |
|                      | </tr>                   |                     |
|                      | </thead>                |                     |
|                      | <tbody>                 |                     |
|                      | <tr class="odd">        |                     |
|                      | <td>a. % of             |                     |
|                      | preschoolers who did    |                     |
|                      | not improve             |                     |
|                      | functioning.</td>       |                     |
|                      | <td>4%</td>             |                     |
|                      | <td>4%</td>             |                     |
|                      | <td>4%</td>             |                     |
|                      | </tr>                   |                     |
|                      | <tr class="even">       |                     |
|                      | <td>b. % of             |                     |
|                      | preschoolers who        |                     |
|                      | improved but not        |                     |
|                      | sufficient to move      |                     |
|                      | nearer to functioning   |                     |
|                      | comparable to           |                     |
|                      | same-aged peers.</td>   |                     |
|                      | <td>25%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>25%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>18%</td>            |                     |
|                      | </tr>                   |                     |
|                      | <tr class="odd">        |                     |
|                      | <td>c. % of             |                     |
|                      | preschoolers who        |                     |
|                      | improved to a level     |                     |
|                      | nearer to same-aged     |                     |
|                      | peers but did not       |                     |
|                      | reach it.</td>          |                     |
|                      | <td>33%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>32%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>29%</td>            |                     |
|                      | </tr>                   |                     |
|                      | <tr class="even">       |                     |
|                      | <td>d. % of             |                     |
|                      | preschoolers who        |                     |
|                      | improved functioning    |                     |
|                      | to reach a level        |                     |
|                      | comparable to           |                     |
|                      | same-aged peers.</td>   |                     |
|                      | <td>18%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>19%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>17%</td>            |                     |
|                      | </tr>                   |                     |
|                      | <tr class="odd">        |                     |
|                      | <td>e. % of             |                     |
|                      | preschoolers who        |                     |
|                      | maintained              |                     |
|                      | functioning at a        |                     |
|                      | level comparable to     |                     |
|                      | same-aged peers.</td>   |                     |
|                      | <td>20%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>20%</td>            |                     |
|                      | <td>32%</td>            |                     |
|                      | </tr>                   |                     |
|                      | </tbody>                |                     |
|                      | </table>                |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | The State provided      |                     |
|                      | improvement activities  |                     |
|                      | for this indicator      |                     |
|                      | covering the remaining  |                     |
|                      | years of the SPP.       |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 8\. Percent of       | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP appreciates    |
| parents with a child | reported data for this  | the State's efforts |
| receiving special    | indicator are 77%.      | to improve          |
| education services   | These data represent    | performance.        |
| who report that      | progress from the FFY   |                     |
| schools facilitated  | 2005 data of 76%.       |                     |
| parent involvement   |                         |                     |
| as a means of        | The State met its FFY   |                     |
| improving services   | 2006 target of 76%.     |                     |
| and results for      |                         |                     |
| children with        |                         |                     |
| disabilities.        |                         |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| \[Results            |                         |                     |
| Indicator\]          |                         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 9\. Percent of       | The State revised the   | OSEP's June 15,     |
| districts with       | improvement activities  | 2007 FFY 2005       |
| disproportionate     | for this indicator in   | SPP/APR response    |
| representation of    | its SPP and OSEP        | table required the  |
| racial and ethnic    | accepts those           | State to include in |
| groups in special    | revisions.              | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| education and        |                         | due February 1,     |
| related services     | The State's FFY 2006    | 2008, baseline data |
| that is the result   | reported data for this  | from FFY 2005 and   |
| of inappropriate     | indicator are 0%. These | FFY 2006 progress   |
| identification.      | data remain unchanged   | data on the percent |
|                      | from the FFY 2005 data  | of districts        |
| \[Compliance         | of 0%.                  | identified with     |
| Indicator\]          |                         | disproportionate    |
|                      | The State met its FFY   | representation of   |
|                      | 2006 target of 0%.      | racial and ethnic   |
|                      |                         | groups in special   |
|                      | The State reported that | education and       |
|                      | no districts were       | related services    |
|                      | identified in FFY 2005  | that was the result |
|                      | and FFY 2006 as having  | of inappropriate    |
|                      | disproportionate        | identification and  |
|                      | representation of       | a description of    |
|                      | racial and ethnic       | how the State made  |
|                      | groups in special       | that determination. |
|                      | education and related   | The State was       |
|                      | services based on the   | required to provide |
|                      | State's calculation of  | information to      |
|                      | the data.               | demonstrate that    |
|                      |                         | the State makes an  |
|                      |                         | annual              |
|                      |                         | determination of    |
|                      |                         | the percent of      |
|                      |                         | districts with      |
|                      |                         | disproportionate    |
|                      |                         | representation of   |
|                      |                         | racial and ethnic   |
|                      |                         | groups in special   |
|                      |                         | education and       |
|                      |                         | related services    |
|                      |                         | that is the result  |
|                      |                         | of inappropriate    |
|                      |                         | identification and  |
|                      |                         | that it examines    |
|                      |                         | the data for both   |
|                      |                         | underrepresentation |
|                      |                         | and                 |
|                      |                         | overrepresentation. |
|                      |                         | The State was also  |
|                      |                         | required to         |
|                      |                         | demonstrate that it |
|                      |                         | makes an annual     |
|                      |                         | determination of    |
|                      |                         | whether significant |
|                      |                         | disproportionality  |
|                      |                         | based on race and   |
|                      |                         | ethnicity is        |
|                      |                         | occurring in LEAs   |
|                      |                         | with respect to     |
|                      |                         | identification,     |
|                      |                         | placement, and      |
|                      |                         | disciplinary        |
|                      |                         | actions, and if it  |
|                      |                         | identifies          |
|                      |                         | significant         |
|                      |                         | disproportionality, |
|                      |                         | it: 1) provides for |
|                      |                         | the review (and, if |
|                      |                         | appropriate)        |
|                      |                         | revision of         |
|                      |                         | policies,           |
|                      |                         | procedures, and     |
|                      |                         | practices; 2)       |
|                      |                         | requires the LEA to |
|                      |                         | reserve the maximum |
|                      |                         | amount of funds to  |
|                      |                         | be used for early   |
|                      |                         | intervening         |
|                      |                         | services; and 3)    |
|                      |                         | requires the LEA to |
|                      |                         | publicly report on  |
|                      |                         | the revision of     |
|                      |                         | policies,           |
|                      |                         | procedures, and     |
|                      |                         | practices, as       |
|                      |                         | required in 34 CFR  |
|                      |                         | §300.646(b)(2). The |
|                      |                         | State provided the  |
|                      |                         | required            |
|                      |                         | information.        |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | OSEP appreciates    |
|                      |                         | the State's efforts |
|                      |                         | regarding this      |
|                      |                         | indicator.          |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 10\. Percent of      | The State revised the   | OSEP's June 15,     |
| districts with       | improvement activities  | 2007 FFY 2005       |
| disproportionate     | for this indicator in   | SPP/APR response    |
| representation of    | its SPP and OSEP        | table required the  |
| racial and ethnic    | accepts those           | State to include in |
| groups in specific   | revisions.              | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| disability           |                         | due February 1,     |
| categories that is   | The State's FFY 2006    | 2008, baseline data |
| the result of        | reported data for this  | from FFY 2005 and   |
| inappropriate        | indicator are 0%. These | FFY 2006 progress   |
| identification.      | data remain unchanged   | data on the percent |
|                      | from the FFY 2005 data  | of districts        |
| \[Compliance         | of 0%.                  | identified with     |
| Indicator\]          |                         | disproportionate    |
|                      | The State met its FFY   | representation of   |
|                      | 2006 target of 0%.      | racial and ethnic   |
|                      |                         | groups in specific  |
|                      | The State reported the  | disability          |
|                      | actual number of        | categories that was |
|                      | districts in FFY 2005   | the result of       |
|                      | and FFY 2006 determined | inappropriate       |
|                      | to have                 | identification, and |
|                      | disproportionate        | a description of    |
|                      | representation of       | how the State made  |
|                      | racial and ethnic       | that determination. |
|                      | groups in specific      | The State was       |
|                      | disability categories   | required to provide |
|                      | that was the result of  | information to      |
|                      | inappropriate           | demonstrate that    |
|                      | identification.         | the State makes an  |
|                      |                         | annual              |
|                      |                         | determination of    |
|                      |                         | the percent of      |
|                      |                         | districts with      |
|                      |                         | disproportionate    |
|                      |                         | representation of   |
|                      |                         | racial and ethnic   |
|                      |                         | groups in specific  |
|                      |                         | disability          |
|                      |                         | categories that is  |
|                      |                         | the result of       |
|                      |                         | inappropriate       |
|                      |                         | identification and  |
|                      |                         | that it examines    |
|                      |                         | the data for both   |
|                      |                         | underrepresentation |
|                      |                         | and                 |
|                      |                         | overrepresentation. |
|                      |                         | The State was also  |
|                      |                         | required to         |
|                      |                         | demonstrate that it |
|                      |                         | makes an annual     |
|                      |                         | determination of    |
|                      |                         | whether significant |
|                      |                         | disproportionality  |
|                      |                         | based on race and   |
|                      |                         | ethnicity is        |
|                      |                         | occurring in LEAs   |
|                      |                         | with respect to     |
|                      |                         | identification,     |
|                      |                         | placement, and      |
|                      |                         | disciplinary        |
|                      |                         | actions, and if it  |
|                      |                         | identifies          |
|                      |                         | significant         |
|                      |                         | disproportionality, |
|                      |                         | it: 1) provides for |
|                      |                         | the review (and, if |
|                      |                         | appropriate)        |
|                      |                         | revision of         |
|                      |                         | policies,           |
|                      |                         | procedures, and     |
|                      |                         | practices; 2)       |
|                      |                         | requires the LEA to |
|                      |                         | reserve the maximum |
|                      |                         | amount of funds to  |
|                      |                         | be used for early   |
|                      |                         | intervening         |
|                      |                         | services; and 3)    |
|                      |                         | requires the LEA to |
|                      |                         | publicly report on  |
|                      |                         | the revision of     |
|                      |                         | policies,           |
|                      |                         | procedures, and     |
|                      |                         | practices, as       |
|                      |                         | required in 34 CFR  |
|                      |                         | §300.646(b)(2). The |
|                      |                         | State provided the  |
|                      |                         | required            |
|                      |                         | information.        |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | OSEP appreciates    |
|                      |                         | the State's efforts |
|                      |                         | regarding this      |
|                      |                         | indicator.          |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 11\. Percent of      | The State's FFY 2006    | The State reported  |
| children with        | reported data for this  | that noncompliance  |
| parental consent to  | indicator are 93.8%.    | identified in FFY   |
| evaluate, who were   | These data represent    | 2005 with the       |
| evaluated within 60  | progress from the FFY   | timely evaluation   |
| days (or State       | 2005 data of 88.5%.     | requirements in 34  |
| established          |                         | CFR §300.301(c)(1)  |
| timeline).           | The State did not meet  | was corrected in a  |
|                      | its FFY 2006 target of  | timely manner.      |
| \[Compliance         | 100%.                   |                     |
| Indicator\]          |                         | The State must      |
|                      | The State reported that | review its          |
|                      | 14 of 14 districts with | improvement         |
|                      | findings of             | activities and      |
|                      | noncompliance           | revise them, if     |
|                      | identified in FFY 2005  | appropriate, to     |
|                      | related to this         | ensure they will    |
|                      | indicator timely        | enable the State to |
|                      | corrected the           | provide data in the |
|                      | noncompliance.          | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      |                         | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      |                         | demonstrating that  |
|                      |                         | the State is in     |
|                      |                         | compliance with the |
|                      |                         | requirements in 34  |
|                      |                         | CFR §300.301(c)(1), |
|                      |                         | including reporting |
|                      |                         | correction of the   |
|                      |                         | noncompliance       |
|                      |                         | identified in the   |
|                      |                         | FFY 2006 APR.       |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 12\. Percent of      | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP's June 15,     |
| children referred by | reported data for this  | 2007 FFY 2005       |
| Part C prior to age  | indicator are 80.3%.    | SPP/APR response    |
| 3, who are found     | These data represent    | table required the  |
| eligible for Part B, | progress from the FFY   | State to include in |
| and who have an IEP  | 2005 data of 72%.       | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| developed and        |                         | due February 1,     |
| implemented by their | The State did not meet  | 2008, data on the   |
| third birthdays.     | its FFY 2006 target of  | number of children  |
|                      | 100%.                   | for whom parental   |
| \[Compliance         |                         | refusal to provide  |
| Indicator\]          | The State reported that | consent caused      |
|                      | 39 of 96 districts with | delays in           |
|                      | findings of             | evaluations and the |
|                      | noncompliance           | "reasons for the    |
|                      | identified in FFY 2005  | delays" when        |
|                      | related to this         | eligibility was     |
|                      | indicator timely        | determined and the  |
|                      | corrected the           | IEP was developed   |
|                      | noncompliance. For the  | beyond the child's  |
|                      | uncorrected             | third birthday. The |
|                      | noncompliance, the      | State provided the  |
|                      | State reported that the | required            |
|                      | remaining 57 districts  | information.        |
|                      | are currently           |                     |
|                      | completing their        | The State reported  |
|                      | corrective actions and  | that noncompliance  |
|                      | the State will continue | identified in FFY   |
|                      | to work with them until | 2005 with the early |
|                      | the corrective actions  | childhood           |
|                      | are completed.          | transition          |
|                      |                         | requirements in 34  |
|                      |                         | CFR §300.124(b) was |
|                      |                         | partially           |
|                      |                         | corrected. The      |
|                      |                         | State must          |
|                      |                         | demonstrate, in the |
|                      |                         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      |                         | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      |                         | that the            |
|                      |                         | uncorrected         |
|                      |                         | noncompliance was   |
|                      |                         | corrected.          |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | The State must      |
|                      |                         | review its          |
|                      |                         | improvement         |
|                      |                         | activities and      |
|                      |                         | revise them, if     |
|                      |                         | appropriate, to     |
|                      |                         | ensure they will    |
|                      |                         | enable the State to |
|                      |                         | provide data in the |
|                      |                         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      |                         | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      |                         | demonstrating that  |
|                      |                         | the State is in     |
|                      |                         | compliance with the |
|                      |                         | requirements in 34  |
|                      |                         | CFR §300.124(b),    |
|                      |                         | including reporting |
|                      |                         | correction of the   |
|                      |                         | noncompliance       |
|                      |                         | identified in the   |
|                      |                         | FFY 2006 APR.       |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 13\. Percent of      | The State revised the   | The State reported  |
| youth aged 16 and    | improvement activities  | that noncompliance  |
| above with an IEP    | for this indicator in   | identified in FFY   |
| that includes        | its SPP and OSEP        | 2005 with the       |
| coordinated,         | accepts those           | secondary           |
| measurable, annual   | revisions.              | transition          |
| IEP goals and        |                         | requirements in 34  |
| transition services  | The State's FFY 2006    | CFR §300.320(b) was |
| that will reasonably | reported data for this  | corrected in a      |
| enable the student   | indicator are 98.8%.    | timely manner.      |
| to meet the          | These data represent    |                     |
| post-secondary       | progress from the FFY   | OSEP appreciates    |
| goals.               | 2005 data of 83.8%.     | the State's efforts |
|                      |                         | and looks forward   |
| \[Compliance         | The State did not meet  | to reviewing in the |
| Indicator\]          | its FFY 2006 target of  | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      | 100%.                   | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      |                         | the State's data    |
|                      | The State reported that | demonstrating that  |
|                      | 19 of 19 districts with | it is in compliance |
|                      | findings of             | with the            |
|                      | noncompliance           | requirements in 34  |
|                      | identified in FFY 2005  | CFR §300.320(b),    |
|                      | related to this         | including reporting |
|                      | indicator timely        | correction of the   |
|                      | corrected the           | noncompliance       |
|                      | noncompliance.          | identified in the   |
|                      |                         | FFY 2006 APR.       |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 14\. Percent of      | The State provided      | OSEP's June 15,     |
| youth who had IEPs,  | baseline data, targets  | 2007 FFY 2005       |
| are no longer in     | and improvement         | SPP/APR response    |
| secondary school and | activities for this     | table required the  |
| who have been        | indicator in its SPP    | State to include in |
| competitively        | and OSEP accepts the    | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| employed, enrolled   | SPP for this indicator. | due February 1,     |
| in some type of      |                         | 2008, definitions   |
| postsecondary        | The State's FFY 2006    | of "competitive     |
| school, or both,     | reported baseline data  | employment" and     |
| within one year of   | for this indicator are  | "post-secondary     |
| leaving high school. | 93%.                    | school". The State  |
|                      |                         | provided the        |
| \[Results Indicator; |                         | required            |
| New\]                |                         | information.        |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | OSEP looks forward  |
|                      |                         | to reviewing the    |
|                      |                         | State's data in the |
|                      |                         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      |                         | February 1, 2009.   |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 15\. General         | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP's June 15,     |
| supervision system   | reported data for this  | 2007 FFY 2005       |
| (including           | indicator are 63%.      | SPP/APR response    |
| monitoring,          | These data represent    | table required the  |
| complaints,          | slippage from the FFY   | State to include in |
| hearings, etc.)      | 2005 data of 69%.       | the FFY 2006 APR,   |
| identifies and       |                         | due February 1,     |
| corrects             | The State did not meet  | 2008, FFY 2006      |
| noncompliance as     | its FFY 2006 target of  | progress data on    |
| soon as possible but | 100%.                   | the correction of   |
| in no case later     |                         | findings of         |
| than one year from   | The State reported that | noncompliance made  |
| identification.      | 707 out of 1125         | through due process |
|                      | findings of             | hearings, as well   |
| \[Compliance         | noncompliance           | as findings of      |
| Indicator\]          | identified in FFY 2005  | noncompliance made  |
|                      | were corrected in a     | through complaints  |
|                      | timely manner and that  | and data on the     |
|                      | an additional 291       | correction of       |
|                      | findings of             | outstanding         |
|                      | noncompliance (89%)     | noncompliance       |
|                      | were corrected by       | identified in FFY   |
|                      | April, 2008. The State  | 2004 (2004-2005).   |
|                      | reported that nineteen  | The State provided  |
|                      | school districts have   | the required        |
|                      | not yet corrected the   | information.        |
|                      | 127 remaining findings  |                     |
|                      | of noncompliance that   | The State must      |
|                      | were identified in FFY  | demonstrate, in the |
|                      | 2005. Four districts    | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      | have had on-site visits | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      | conducted, 9 districts  | that the State has  |
|                      | have on-site visits     | corrected the       |
|                      | scheduled, and for the  | remaining           |
|                      | remaining 6 districts,  | noncompliance       |
|                      | the State reported the  | identified in       |
|                      | district specific       | Indicator 15 from   |
|                      | follow-up activities it | FFY 2005 and FFY    |
|                      | is carrying out.        | 2004.               |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      | The State reported that | The State must      |
|                      | 667 out of 813 findings | review its          |
|                      | (82%) of noncompliance  | improvement         |
|                      | identified in FFY 2004  | activities and      |
|                      | had been corrected by   | revise, if          |
|                      | February 1, 2008. The   | appropriate, to     |
|                      | State reported that all | ensure they will    |
|                      | districts with          | enable the State to |
|                      | outstanding findings of | provide data in the |
|                      | noncompliance that were | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      | identified in FFY 2004  | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      | have either received an | demonstrating that  |
|                      | on-site visit or are    | the State timely    |
|                      | scheduled to receive    | corrected           |
|                      | one by June 2, 2008.    | noncompliance       |
|                      |                         | identified in FFY   |
|                      |                         | 2006 (2006-2007)    |
|                      |                         | under this          |
|                      |                         | indicator in        |
|                      |                         | accordance with 20  |
|                      |                         | U.S.C.              |
|                      |                         | 1232d(b)(3)(E) and  |
|                      |                         | 34 CFR §§300.149    |
|                      |                         | and 300.600.        |
|                      |                         |                     |
|                      |                         | In addition, in     |
|                      |                         | responding to       |
|                      |                         | Indicators 11, 12   |
|                      |                         | and 13, the State   |
|                      |                         | must specifically   |
|                      |                         | identify and        |
|                      |                         | address the         |
|                      |                         | noncompliance       |
|                      |                         | identified in this  |
|                      |                         | table under those   |
|                      |                         | indicators.         |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 16\. Percent of      | The State's FFY 2006    | The State must      |
| signed written       | reported data for this  | review its          |
| complaints with      | indicator are 91%.      | improvement         |
| reports issued that  | These data represent    | activities and      |
| were resolved within | progress from the FFY   | revise them, if     |
| 60-day timeline or a | 2005 data of 81%.       | appropriate, to     |
| timeline extended    |                         | ensure they will    |
| for exceptional      | The State did not meet  | enable the State to |
| circumstances with   | its FFY 2006 target of  | provide data in the |
| respect to a         | 100%.                   | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
| particular           |                         | February 1, 2009,   |
| complaint.           |                         | demonstrating that  |
|                      |                         | the State is in     |
| \[Compliance         |                         | compliance with the |
| Indicator\]          |                         | timely complaint    |
|                      |                         | resolution          |
|                      |                         | requirements in 34  |
|                      |                         | CFR §300.152.       |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 17\. Percent of      | The State revised the   | OSEP appreciates    |
| fully adjudicated    | improvement activities  | the State's efforts |
| due process hearing  | for this indicator in   | and looks forward   |
| requests that were   | its SPP and OSEP        | to reviewing in the |
| fully adjudicated    | accepts those           | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
| within the 45-day    | revisions.              | February 1, 2009,   |
| timeline or a        |                         | the State's data    |
| timeline that is     | The State's FFY 2006    | demonstrating that  |
| properly extended by | reported data for this  | it is in compliance |
| the hearing officer  | indicator are 96.2%.    | with the timely due |
| at the request of    | These data represent    | process hearing     |
| either party.        | progress from the FFY   | resolution          |
|                      | 2005 data of 88%.       | requirements in 34  |
| \[Compliance         |                         | CFR §300.515.       |
| Indicator\]          | The State did not meet  |                     |
|                      | its FFY 2006 target of  |                     |
|                      | 100%.                   |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 18\. Percent of      | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP looks forward  |
| hearing requests     | reported data for this  | to the State's data |
| that went to         | indicator are 6.25%.    | demonstrating       |
| resolution sessions  |                         | improvement in      |
| that were resolved   | The State did not meet  | performance in the  |
| through resolution   | its FFY 2006 target of  | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
| session settlement   | 48%.                    | February 1, 2009.   |
| agreements.          |                         |                     |
|                      |                         |                     |
| \[Results            |                         |                     |
| Indicator\]          |                         |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 19\. Percent of      | The State's FFY 2006    | OSEP looks forward  |
| mediations held that | reported data for this  | to the State's data |
| resulted in          | indicator are 83.7%.    | demonstrating       |
| mediation            | These data represent    | improvement in      |
| agreements.          | progress from the FFY   | performance in the  |
|                      | 2005 data of 83.4%.     | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
| \[Results            |                         | February 1, 2009.   |
| Indicator\]          | The State did not meet  |                     |
|                      | its FFY 2006 target of  |                     |
|                      | 86%.                    |                     |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+
| 20\. State reported  | The State revised the   | The State must      |
| data (618 and State  | baseline for this       | review its          |
| Performance Plan and | indicator in its SPP    | improvement         |
| Annual Performance   | and OSEP accepts those  | activities and      |
| Report) are timely   | revisions.              | revise them, if     |
| and accurate.        |                         | appropriate, to     |
|                      | The State's FFY 2006    | ensure they will    |
| \[Compliance         | reported data for this  | enable the State to |
| Indicator\]          | indicator are 95%.      | provide data in the |
|                      | However, OSEP's         | FFY 2007 APR, due   |
|                      | calculation of the data | February 1, 2009,   |
|                      | for this indicator is   | demonstrating that  |
|                      | 93%.                    | the State is in     |
|                      |                         | compliance with the |
|                      | The State did not meet  | timely and accurate |
|                      | its FFY 2006 target of  | data requirements   |
|                      | 100%.                   | in IDEA sections    |
|                      |                         | 616 and 618 and 34  |
|                      |                         | CFR §§76.720 and    |
|                      |                         | 300.601(b).         |
+----------------------+-------------------------+---------------------+