+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| **Monitoring  | **Status of APR Data/SPP       | **OSEP             |
| Priorities    | Revision Issues**              | Analysis/Next      |
| and           |                                | Steps**            |
| Indicators**  |                                |                    |
+===============+================================+====================+
| 1.  Percent   | The State revised the          | OSEP looks forward |
|     of youth  | baseline, targets, and         | to the State's     |
|     with IEPs | improvement activities for     | data demonstrating |
|               | this indicator in its SPP and  | improvement in     |
|    graduating | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | performance in the |
|     from high |                                | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|     school    | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | February 1, 2009.  |
|     with a    | data for this indicator are    |                    |
|     regular   | 49.4%. These data represent    |                    |
|     diploma   | slippage from the FFY 2005     |                    |
|     compared  | data of 50%. The State did not |                    |
|     to        | meet its FFY 2006 target of    |                    |
|     percent   | 50%.                           |                    |
|     of all    |                                |                    |
|     youth in  |                                |                    |
|     the State |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|    graduating |                                |                    |
|     with a    |                                |                    |
|     regular   |                                |                    |
|     diploma.  |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 2.  Percent   | The State added an improvement | OSEP's June 15,    |
|     of youth  | activity for this indicator in | 2007 FFY 2005      |
|     with IEPs | its SPP and OSEP accepts that  | SPP/APR response   |
|     dropping  | revision.                      | table required the |
|     out of    |                                | State to include   |
|     high      | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | in the FFY 2006    |
|     school    | data for this indicator are    | APR, due February  |
|     compared  | 7.79%. These data represent    | 1, 2008, data from |
|     to the    | progress from the FFY 2005     | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
|     percent   | data of 9.21%. The State did   | 2006 for this      |
|     of all    | not meet its FFY 2006 target   | indicator. The     |
|     youth in  | of 7.00%.                      | State provided the |
|     the State |                                | required data.     |
|     dropping  |                                |                    |
|     out of    |                                | OSEP looks forward |
|     high      |                                | to the State's     |
|     school.   |                                | data demonstrating |
|               |                                | improvement in     |
| \[Results     |                                | performance in the |
| Indicator\]   |                                | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|               |                                | February 1, 2009.  |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 3\.           | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | OSEP looks forward |
| Participation | data for this indicator are    | to the State's     |
| and           | 12.1%. These data represent    | data demonstrating |
| performance   | slippage from the FFY 2005     | improvement in     |
| of children   | data of 13.1%. The State did   | performance in the |
| with          | not meet its FFY 2006 target   | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
| disabilities  | of 25%.                        | February 1, 2009.  |
| on statewide  |                                |                    |
| assessments:  |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| A. Percent of |                                |                    |
| districts     |                                |                    |
| that have a   |                                |                    |
| disability    |                                |                    |
| subgroup that |                                |                    |
| meets the     |                                |                    |
| State's       |                                |                    |
| minimum "n"   |                                |                    |
| size meeting  |                                |                    |
| the State's   |                                |                    |
| AYP           |                                |                    |
| objectives    |                                |                    |
| for progress  |                                |                    |
| for           |                                |                    |
| disability    |                                |                    |
| subgroup.     |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 3\.           | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | OSEP's June 15,    |
| Participation | data for this indicator are:   | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| and           |                                | SPP/APR response   |
| performance   |                                | table required the |
| of children   |  ------- --------- ------- --- | State to include   |
| with          | ----- ------- ------- -------- | in the FFY 2006    |
| disabilities  |                                | APR, due February  |
| on statewide  |  Grade   FFY 2005  FFY     FFY | 1, 2008, data      |
| assessments:  |  2006 FFY     FFY     FFY 2006 | demonstrating that |
|               |           Data      2006    T  | the LEAs           |
| B.            | arget   2005    2006    Target | identified in the  |
| Participation |                     Dat        | State's survey as  |
| rate for      | a             Data    Data     | being out of       |
| children with |                                | compliance with    |
| IEPs in a     |           Reading              | the requirements   |
| regular       |               Math             | of 34 CFR          |
| assessment    |                                | §§300.160(c) and   |
| with no       |   3       98.9%     99.9%      | (f) and            |
| ac            | 99.6%    99.1%   99.9%   99.6% | 300.320(a)(6)      |
| commodations; |                                | corrected that     |
| regular       |   4       98.9%     99.9%      | noncompliance      |
| assessment    | 99.6%    99.0%   99.9%   99.6% | within one year of |
| with          |                                | identification.    |
| ac            |   5       98.8%     99.9%      | The State reported |
| commodations; | 99.6%    98.9%   99.9%   99.6% | that 100% of LEAs  |
| alternate     |                                | corrected          |
| assessment    |   6       98.4%     99.6%      | noncompliance in   |
| against grade | 99.5%    98.4%   99.9%   99.3% | this area.         |
| level         |                                |                    |
| standards;    |   7       98.3%     99.4%      | OSEP appreciates   |
| alternate     | 99.3%    98.0%   99.9%   99.1% | the State's        |
| assessment    |                                | efforts to improve |
| against       |   8       98.0%     99.5%      | performance.       |
| alternate     | 99.1%    98.0%   99.9%   99.1% |                    |
| achievement   |                                |                    |
| standards.    |   HS      87.9%     100%       |                    |
|               | 95.5%    89.3%   100%    95.5% |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |  ------- --------- ------- --- |                    |
|               | ----- ------- ------- -------- |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | These data represent progress  |                    |
|               | from the FFY 2005 data.        |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
|               | targets.                       |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 3.            | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | OSEP appreciates   |
| Participation | data for this indicator are:   | the State's        |
|     and       |                                | efforts to improve |
|               |                                | performance and    |
|   performance |  ------- --------- ------- --- | looks forward to   |
|     of        | ----- ------- ------- -------- | the State's data   |
|     children  |                                | demonstrating      |
|     with      |  Grade   FFY 2005  FFY     FFY | improvement in     |
|               |  2006 FFY     FFY     FFY 2006 | performance in the |
|  disabilities |           Data      2006    T  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|     on        | arget   2005    2006    Target | February 1, 2009.  |
|     statewide |                     Dat        |                    |
|               | a             Data    Data     |                    |
|  assessments: |                                |                    |
|               |           Reading              |                    |
| C.            |               Math             |                    |
| Proficiency   |                                |                    |
| rate for      |   3       55.9%     55.2%      |                    |
| children with | 61.0%    46.9%   49.5%   61.3% |                    |
| IEPs against  |                                |                    |
| grade level   |   4       53.7%     58.2%      |                    |
| standards and | 58.9%    39.4%   44.1%   70.3% |                    |
| alternate     |                                |                    |
| achievement   |   5       60.8%     62.9%      |                    |
| standards.    | 67.3%    35.1%   40.0%   62.9% |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |   6       48.2%     51.8%      |                    |
| Indicator\]   | 53.4%    31.6%   37.7%   58.9% |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |   7       55.0%     56.7%      |                    |
|               | 58.8%    31.0%   35.2%   49.3% |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |   8       56.4%     60.7%      |                    |
|               | 63.4%    30.0%   36.4%   48.3% |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |   HS      16.5%     85.0%      |                    |
|               | 20.0%    45.0%   27.5%   51.6% |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |  ------- --------- ------- --- |                    |
|               | ----- ------- ------- -------- |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State confirmed that       |                    |
|               | although the data in the APR   |                    |
|               | are not consistent with the    |                    |
|               | 618 data in Table 6, the data  |                    |
|               | in the APR are accurate.       |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The data that the State        |                    |
|               | reported in the APR represent  |                    |
|               | slippage for 3rd grade reading |                    |
|               | and high school (HS) math, and |                    |
|               | progress for all other grades  |                    |
|               | for reading and math.          |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State met its FFY 2006     |                    |
|               | targets for HS reading, did    |                    |
|               | not meet its FFY 2006 targets  |                    |
|               | for reading in other grades,   |                    |
|               | and did not meet its targets   |                    |
|               | for any grades in math.        |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 4\. Rates of  | The State revised the          | OSEP's June 15,    |
| suspension    | improvement activities for     | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| and           | this indicator in its SPP and  | SPP/APR response   |
| expulsion:    | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | table required the |
|               |                                | State to include   |
| A. Percent of | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | in the FFY 2006    |
| districts     | data for this indicator are    | APR, due February  |
| identified by | 5.2%. These data represent     | 1, 2008, a         |
| the State as  | slippage from the FFY 2005     | description of the |
| having a      | data of 2.6%. The State met    | review, and if     |
| significant   | its FFY 2006 target of 9.1%.   | appropriate,       |
| discrepancy   |                                | revision, of       |
| in the rates  |                                | policies,          |
| of            |                                | procedures, and    |
| suspensions   |                                | practices relating |
| and           |                                | to the development |
| expulsions of |                                | and implementation |
| children with |                                | of IEPs, the use   |
| disabilities  |                                | of positive        |
| for greater   |                                | behavioral         |
| than 10 days  |                                | interventions and  |
| in a school   |                                | supports, and      |
| year; and     |                                | procedural         |
|               |                                | safeguards to      |
| \[Results     |                                | ensure compliance  |
| Indicator\]   |                                | with the IDEA for  |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified as      |
|               |                                | having significant |
|               |                                | discrepancies as   |
|               |                                | required by 34 CFR |
|               |                                | §300.170(b) in its |
|               |                                | FFY 2004, FFY      |
|               |                                | 2005, and FFY 2006 |
|               |                                | APRs. The State    |
|               |                                | provided the       |
|               |                                | required           |
|               |                                | information for    |
|               |                                | LEAs identified in |
|               |                                | the FFY 2004 and   |
|               |                                | 2005 APRs.         |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State reported |
|               |                                | that it required   |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified in FFY  |
|               |                                | 2004 and 2005 to   |
|               |                                | make changes to    |
|               |                                | their policies, as |
|               |                                | a result of the    |
|               |                                | review required by |
|               |                                | 34 CFR             |
|               |                                | §300.170(b). Some  |
|               |                                | of these actions   |
|               |                                | have been          |
|               |                                | completed. The     |
|               |                                | State must         |
|               |                                | demonstrate, in    |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009, that the     |
|               |                                | remaining actions  |
|               |                                | have been          |
|               |                                | completed.         |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | In reporting on    |
|               |                                | this indicator in  |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009, the State    |
|               |                                | must also describe |
|               |                                | the results of the |
|               |                                | State\'s           |
|               |                                | examination of     |
|               |                                | data from FFY 2007 |
|               |                                | (2007-2008). In    |
|               |                                | addition, the      |
|               |                                | State must         |
|               |                                | describe the       |
|               |                                | review, and if     |
|               |                                | appropriate,       |
|               |                                | revision, of       |
|               |                                | policies,          |
|               |                                | procedures and     |
|               |                                | practices relating |
|               |                                | to the development |
|               |                                | and implementation |
|               |                                | of IEPs, the use   |
|               |                                | of positive        |
|               |                                | behavioral         |
|               |                                | interventions and  |
|               |                                | supports, and      |
|               |                                | procedural         |
|               |                                | safeguards to      |
|               |                                | ensure compliance  |
|               |                                | with the IDEA for  |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified with    |
|               |                                | significant        |
|               |                                | discrepancies in   |
|               |                                | FFY 2006, as       |
|               |                                | required by 34 CFR |
|               |                                | §300.170(b).       |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 4\. Rates of  | Reporting on Indicator 4B was  |                    |
| suspension    | not required for the FFY 2006  |                    |
| and           | APR.                           |                    |
| expulsion:    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| B. Percent of |                                |                    |
| districts     |                                |                    |
| identified by |                                |                    |
| the State as  |                                |                    |
| having a      |                                |                    |
| significant   |                                |                    |
| discrepancy   |                                |                    |
| in the rates  |                                |                    |
| of            |                                |                    |
| suspensions   |                                |                    |
| and           |                                |                    |
| expulsions of |                                |                    |
| greater than  |                                |                    |
| 10 days in a  |                                |                    |
| school year   |                                |                    |
| of children   |                                |                    |
| with          |                                |                    |
| disabilities  |                                |                    |
| by race and   |                                |                    |
| ethnicity.    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 5\. Percent   | The State added an improvement | OSEP appreciates   |
| of children   | activity for this indicator in | the State's        |
| with IEPs     | its SPP and OSEP accepts that  | efforts to improve |
| aged 6        | revision.                      | performance and    |
| through 21:   |                                | looks forward to   |
|               | The State's reported data for  | the State's data   |
| A. Removed    | this indicator are:            | demonstrating      |
| from regular  |                                | improvement in     |
| class less    |   ------------                 | performance in the |
| than 21% of   | --- -------- -------- -------- | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
| the day;      |                                | February 1, 2009.  |
|               |     FFY 2005 FFY 2006 FFY 2006 |                    |
| B. Removed    |                                |                    |
| from regular  |       Data     Data     Target |                    |
| class greater |                                |                    |
| than 60% of   |   A. Removed                   |                    |
| the day; or   |  from 61.56%   63.18%   61.59% |                    |
|               |   regu                         |                    |
| C. Served in  | lar class                      |                    |
| public or     |   less                         |                    |
| private       |  than 21%                      |                    |
| separate      |   of t                         |                    |
| schools,      | he day                         |                    |
| residential   |                                |                    |
| placements,   |   B. Removed                   |                    |
| or homebound  |  from 16.82%   16.20%   16.87% |                    |
| or hospital   |   regu                         |                    |
| placements.   | lar class                      |                    |
|               |   grea                         |                    |
| \[Results     | ter than                       |                    |
| Indicator\]   |   60%                          |                    |
|               | of the day                     |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |   C. Served                    |                    |
|               |  in    2.27%    2.34%    2.18% |                    |
|               |   publ                         |                    |
|               | ic or                          |                    |
|               |   priv                         |                    |
|               | ate                            |                    |
|               |   sepa                         |                    |
|               | rate                           |                    |
|               |   scho                         |                    |
|               | ols,                           |                    |
|               |   resi                         |                    |
|               | dential                        |                    |
|               |   plac                         |                    |
|               | ements, or                     |                    |
|               |   home                         |                    |
|               | bound or                       |                    |
|               |   hosp                         |                    |
|               | ital                           |                    |
|               |   plac                         |                    |
|               | ements.                        |                    |
|               |   ------------                 |                    |
|               | --- -------- -------- -------- |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | These data represent progress  |                    |
|               | for Indicators 5A and 5B, and  |                    |
|               | slippage for Indicator 5C,     |                    |
|               | from the FFY 2005 data. The    |                    |
|               | State met its FFY 2006 target  |                    |
|               | for Indicator 5A, and did not  |                    |
|               | meet its FFY 2006 targets for  |                    |
|               | Indicators 5B and 5C.          |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 6\. Percent   | Reporting on Indicator 6 was   |                    |
| of preschool  | not required for the FFY 2006  |                    |
| children with | APR.                           |                    |
| IEPs who      |                                |                    |
| received      |                                |                    |
| special       |                                |                    |
| education and |                                |                    |
| related       |                                |                    |
| services in   |                                |                    |
| settings with |                                |                    |
| typically     |                                |                    |
| developing    |                                |                    |
| peers (i.e.,  |                                |                    |
| early         |                                |                    |
| childhood     |                                |                    |
| settings,     |                                |                    |
| home, and     |                                |                    |
| part-time     |                                |                    |
| early         |                                |                    |
| childh        |                                |                    |
| ood/part-time |                                |                    |
| early         |                                |                    |
| childhood     |                                |                    |
| special       |                                |                    |
| education     |                                |                    |
| settings).    |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 7\. Percent   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | The State must     |
| of preschool  | progress data for this         | provide progress   |
| children with | indicator are:                 | data with the FFY  |
| IEPs who      |                                | 2007 APR, due      |
| demonstrate   | <table>                        | February 1, 2009;  |
| improved:     | <colgroup>                     | and baseline data  |
|               | <col style="width: 58%" />     | and targets with   |
| A.  Positive  | <col style="width: 13%" />     | the FFY 2008 APR,  |
|     soc       | <col style="width: 13%" />     | due February 1,    |
| ial-emotional | <col style="width: 13%" />     | 2010.              |
|     skills    | </colgroup>                    |                    |
|               | <thead>                        |                    |
|    (including | <tr class="header">            |                    |
|     social    | <th><p>06-07 Preschool         |                    |
|     re        | Outcome</p>                    |                    |
| lationships); | <p>Progress Data</p></th>      |                    |
|               | <th><blockquote>               |                    |
| B.            | <p>Social</p>                  |                    |
|   Acquisition | <p>Emotional</p>               |                    |
|     and use   | </blockquote></th>             |                    |
|     of        | <th><blockquote>               |                    |
|     knowledge | <p>Knowledge</p>               |                    |
|     and       | <p>&amp; Skills</p>            |                    |
|     skills    | </blockquote></th>             |                    |
|               | <th><blockquote>               |                    |
|    (including | <p>Appropriate Behavior</p>    |                    |
|     early     | </blockquote></th>             |                    |
|     language/ | </tr>                          |                    |
|               | </thead>                       |                    |
| communication | <tbody>                        |                    |
|     and early | <tr class="odd">               |                    |
|               | <td>a. % of preschoolers who   |                    |
|    literacy); | did not improve                |                    |
|     and       | functioning.</td>              |                    |
|               | <td>1%</td>                    |                    |
| C.  Use of    | <td>1%</td>                    |                    |
|               | <td>1%</td>                    |                    |
|   appropriate | </tr>                          |                    |
|     behaviors | <tr class="even">              |                    |
|     to meet   | <td>b. % of preschoolers who   |                    |
|     their     | improved but not sufficient    |                    |
|     needs.    | to move nearer to              |                    |
|               | functioning comparable to      |                    |
| \[Results     | same-aged peers.</td>          |                    |
| Indicator;    | <td>7%</td>                    |                    |
| New\]         | <td>10%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>7%</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>27%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>32%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>16%</td>                   |                    |
|               | </tr>                          |                    |
|               | <tr class="even">              |                    |
|               | <td>d. % of preschoolers who   |                    |
|               | improved functioning to        |                    |
|               | reach a level comparable to    |                    |
|               | same-aged peers.</td>          |                    |
|               | <td>32%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>32%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>30%</td>                   |                    |
|               | </tr>                          |                    |
|               | <tr class="odd">               |                    |
|               | <td>e. % of preschoolers who   |                    |
|               | maintained functioning at a    |                    |
|               | level comparable to            |                    |
|               | same-aged peers.</td>          |                    |
|               | <td>33%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>25%</td>                   |                    |
|               | <td>47%</td>                   |                    |
|               | </tr>                          |                    |
|               | </tbody>                       |                    |
|               | </table>                       |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State provided improvement |                    |
|               | activities for this indicator  |                    |
|               | covering the remaining years   |                    |
|               | of the SPP.                    |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               | The State confirmed that it    |                    |
|               | used a census approach to      |                    |
|               | collect data for this          |                    |
|               | indicator.                     |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 8\. Percent   | The State provided FFY 2006    | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of parents    | baseline, targets, and revised | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| with a child  | improvement activities for     | SPP/APR response   |
| receiving     | this indicator in its SPP and  | table required the |
| special       | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | State to include   |
| education     |                                | in the FFY 2006    |
| services who  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | APR, due February  |
| report that   | baseline data for this         | 1, 2008, separate  |
| schools       | indicator are 26%.             | baseline data,     |
| facilitated   |                                | targets, and       |
| parent        |                                | improvement        |
| involvement   |                                | activities for the |
| as a means of |                                | percent of parents |
| improving     |                                | of preschool       |
| services and  |                                | children if the    |
| results for   |                                | State uses a       |
| children with |                                | different survey   |
| disabilities. |                                | for the parents of |
|               |                                | preschool          |
| \[Results     |                                | children. The      |
| Indicator\]   |                                | State reported in  |
|               |                                | its FFY 2006 APR   |
|               |                                | that two versions  |
|               |                                | of the scale were  |
|               |                                | used: one for      |
|               |                                | parents of         |
|               |                                | children with      |
|               |                                | disabilities in    |
|               |                                | grades K-12 and    |
|               |                                | one for parents of |
|               |                                | preschool children |
|               |                                | with disabilities. |
|               |                                | The items on each  |
|               |                                | scale were fully   |
|               |                                | equated in the     |
|               |                                | development phases |
|               |                                | so that the        |
|               |                                | measures on the    |
|               |                                | two scales had the |
|               |                                | same meaning, the  |
|               |                                | same standard      |
|               |                                | applied, and       |
|               |                                | measures from the  |
|               |                                | two scales could   |
|               |                                | be aggregated.     |
|               |                                | NCDPI aggregated   |
|               |                                | the measures from  |
|               |                                | the two scales.    |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | OSEP looks forward |
|               |                                | to the State's     |
|               |                                | data demonstrating |
|               |                                | improvement in     |
|               |                                | performance in the |
|               |                                | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|               |                                | February 1, 2009.  |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 9\. Percent   | The State revised the FFY 2005 | OSEP's June 15,    |
| of districts  | baseline and the improvement   | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| with          | activities for this indicator  | SPP/APR response   |
| dis           | in its SPP and OSEP accepts    | table required the |
| proportionate | those revisions.               | State to include   |
| r             |                                | in the FFY 2006    |
| epresentation | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | APR, due February  |
| of racial and | data for this indicator are    | 1, 2008, data from |
| ethnic groups | 0%. These data remain          | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
| in special    | unchanged from the revised FFY | 2006 on the        |
| education and | 2005 data of 0%. The State met | percent of         |
| related       | its FFY 2006 target of 0%.     | districts          |
| services that |                                | identified with    |
| is the result | The State reported that no     | disproportionate   |
| of            | districts were identified in   | representation of  |
| inappropriate | FFY 2006 or FFY 2005 as having | racial and ethnic  |
| id            | disproportionate               | groups in special  |
| entification. | representation of racial and   | education and      |
|               | ethnic groups in special       | related services   |
| \[Compliance  | education and related services | that was the       |
| Indicator\]   | that is the result of          | result of          |
|               | inappropriate identification.  | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification,    |
|               |                                | and a description  |
|               |                                | of how the State   |
|               |                                | made that          |
|               |                                | determination. The |
|               |                                | State provided     |
|               |                                | this information.  |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | OSEP appreciates   |
|               |                                | the State's        |
|               |                                | efforts regarding  |
|               |                                | this indicator.    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 10\. Percent  | The State revised the baseline | As required by     |
| of districts  | and improvement activities for | OSEP's June 15,    |
| with          | this indicator in its SPP and  | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| dis           | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | SPP/APR response   |
| proportionate |                                | table, the State:  |
| r             | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | (1) provided       |
| epresentation | data for this indicator are    | baseline data from |
| of racial and | 11.4%. These data represent    | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
| ethnic groups | progress from the FFY 2005     | 2006 progress data |
| in specific   | data of 31.3%. The State did   | on the percent of  |
| disability    | not meet its target of 0%.     | districts          |
| categories    |                                | identified with    |
| that is the   | The State reported that 44 of  | disproportionate   |
| result of     | 68 LEAs identified in FFY 2005 | representation of  |
| inappropriate | as having disproportionate     | racial and ethnic  |
| id            | representation of racial or    | groups in specific |
| entification. | ethnic groups in specific      | disability         |
|               | disability categories that was | categories that    |
| \[Compliance  | the result of inappropriate    | was the result of  |
| Indicator\]   | identification corrected       | inappropriate      |
|               | non-compliance.                | identification;    |
|               |                                | (2) provided a     |
|               | For the uncorrected            | description of how |
|               | noncompliance, the State       | the State made     |
|               | reported that, using the       | that               |
|               | results from the               | determination; and |
|               | Self-Assessment for            | (3) provided its   |
|               | Disproportionate               | definition of      |
|               | Representation, it: (1)        | disproportionate   |
|               | determined efficient action    | representation.    |
|               | steps that can be taken in     |                    |
|               | order to address the issue;    | OSEP's June 15,    |
|               | (2) required LEAs to revise    | 2007 FFY 2005      |
|               | policies, practices and/or     | SPP/APR response   |
|               | procedures that address        | table also         |
|               | inappropriate identification   | required the State |
|               | as soon as possible, but no    | to include in the  |
|               | later than one year from the   | FFY 2006 APR, due  |
|               | date of the letter; and (3)    | February 1, 2008,  |
|               | required LEAs, in their        | for the 68 LEAs    |
|               | Continuous Improvement         | identified by the  |
|               | Performance Plans (CIPP) due   | State as having    |
|               | to the State on March 15,      | significant        |
|               | 2008, to report on how the LEA | disproportionality |
|               | will revise policies and/or    | with respect to    |
|               | procedures. The State reported | the identification |
|               | that it also increased         | of children as     |
|               | effective educational programs | children with      |
|               | for all students in all        | disabilities or    |
|               | classes to reduce              | the placement in   |
|               | inappropriate evaluations and  | particular         |
|               | placements.                    | educational        |
|               |                                | settings of these  |
|               | The State reported the actual  | children and       |
|               | number of districts determined | disciplinary       |
|               | in FFY 2006 and FFY 2005 to    | actions,           |
|               | have disproportionate          | documentation that |
|               | representation of racial and   | the State, as      |
|               | ethnic groups in specific      | required by 34 CFR |
|               | disability categories that was | §300.646(b):       |
|               | the result of inappropriate    |                    |
|               | identification.                | 1.  provided for   |
|               |                                |     the review     |
|               |                                |     (and, if       |
|               |                                |     appropriate)   |
|               |                                |     revision of    |
|               |                                |     policies,      |
|               |                                |     procedures,    |
|               |                                |     and practices  |
|               |                                |     used in the    |
|               |                                |     identification |
|               |                                |     or placement   |
|               |                                |     to ensure that |
|               |                                |     the policies,  |
|               |                                |     procedures,    |
|               |                                |     and practices  |
|               |                                |     comply with    |
|               |                                |     the            |
|               |                                |     requirements   |
|               |                                |     of IDEA;       |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | 2.  required the   |
|               |                                |     LEAs to        |
|               |                                |     reserve the    |
|               |                                |     maximum amount |
|               |                                |     of funds under |
|               |                                |     section 613(f) |
|               |                                |     of the IDEA to |
|               |                                |     provide        |
|               |                                |     comprehensive  |
|               |                                |     coordinated    |
|               |                                |     early          |
|               |                                |     intervening    |
|               |                                |     services to    |
|               |                                |     serve children |
|               |                                |     in the LEAs,   |
|               |                                |     particularly,  |
|               |                                |     but not        |
|               |                                |     exclusively,   |
|               |                                |     children in    |
|               |                                |     those groups   |
|               |                                |     that were      |
|               |                                |     significantly  |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                |    overidentified; |
|               |                                |     and            |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | 3.  required the   |
|               |                                |     LEAs to        |
|               |                                |     publicly       |
|               |                                |     report on the  |
|               |                                |     revision of    |
|               |                                |     policies,      |
|               |                                |     procedures,    |
|               |                                |     and practices. |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State reported |
|               |                                | that, in its FFY   |
|               |                                | 2005 APR/SPP, it   |
|               |                                | had                |
|               |                                | con                |
|               |                                | fused/interchanged |
|               |                                | the terms          |
|               |                                | "significant       |
|               |                                | d                  |
|               |                                | isproportionality" |
|               |                                | with               |
|               |                                | "disproportionate  |
|               |                                | representation     |
|               |                                | that is the result |
|               |                                | of inappropriate   |
|               |                                | identification"    |
|               |                                | and clarified that |
|               |                                | the State did not  |
|               |                                | identify any       |
|               |                                | districts in FFY   |
|               |                                | 2005 with          |
|               |                                | significant        |
|               |                                | d                  |
|               |                                | isproportionality. |
|               |                                | The State reported |
|               |                                | that it identified |
|               |                                | 43 districts with  |
|               |                                | significant        |
|               |                                | disproportionality |
|               |                                | in FFY 2006 and    |
|               |                                | described the      |
|               |                                | actions that these |
|               |                                | districts are      |
|               |                                | required to take   |
|               |                                | under 34 CFR       |
|               |                                | §300.646(b)(2).    |
|               |                                | OSEP appreciates   |
|               |                                | the State's effort |
|               |                                | in this area.      |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | The State reported |
|               |                                | that noncompliance |
|               |                                | identified in FFY  |
|               |                                | 2005 with the      |
|               |                                | requirements in 34 |
|               |                                | CFR §§300.173,     |
|               |                                | 300.111, 300.201,  |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311    |
|               |                                | was 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, if         |
|               |                                | appropriate, to    |
|               |                                | ensure they will   |
|               |                                | enable the State   |
|               |                                | to demonstrate in  |
|               |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009, that the     |
|               |                                | State has in       |
|               |                                | effect policies    |
|               |                                | and procedures as  |
|               |                                | required by 34 CFR |
|               |                                | §300.173 and that  |
|               |                                | the LEAs           |
|               |                                | identified in FFY  |
|               |                                | 2006 as having     |
|               |                                | disproportionate   |
|               |                                | representation of  |
|               |                                | racial or ethnic   |
|               |                                | groups in specific |
|               |                                | disability         |
|               |                                | categories that    |
|               |                                | was the result of  |
|               |                                | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification are |
|               |                                | in compliance with |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
|               |                                | in 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §§300.111, 300.201 |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311.   |
|               |                                |                    |
|               |                                | In the FFY 2007    |
|               |                                | APR, due February  |
|               |                                | 1, 2009, the State |
|               |                                | must also describe |
|               |                                | its determinations |
|               |                                | of whether the     |
|               |                                | LEAs identified as |
|               |                                | having             |
|               |                                | disproportionate   |
|               |                                | representation of  |
|               |                                | racial or ethnic   |
|               |                                | groups in specific |
|               |                                | disability         |
|               |                                | categories that    |
|               |                                | was the result of  |
|               |                                | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification     |
|               |                                | based on FFY 2006  |
|               |                                | data are in        |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
|               |                                | of 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §§300.111, 300.201 |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311.   |
|               |                                | For districts      |
|               |                                | identified as      |
|               |                                | having             |
|               |                                | disproportionate   |
|               |                                | representation of  |
|               |                                | racial or ethnic   |
|               |                                | groups in specific |
|               |                                | disability         |
|               |                                | categories that    |
|               |                                | was the result of  |
|               |                                | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification     |
|               |                                | based on FFY 2005  |
|               |                                | data, that were    |
|               |                                | reviewed for       |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the requirements   |
|               |                                | of 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §§300.111, 300.201 |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311,   |
|               |                                | and that were also |
|               |                                | identified as      |
|               |                                | having             |
|               |                                | disproportionate   |
|               |                                | representation     |
|               |                                | that was the       |
|               |                                | result of          |
|               |                                | inappropriate      |
|               |                                | identification     |
|               |                                | based on FFY 2006  |
|               |                                | data, the          |
|               |                                | subsequent review, |
|               |                                | at a minimum, must |
|               |                                | include whether    |
|               |                                | there have been    |
|               |                                | changes to the     |
|               |                                | policies and       |
|               |                                | procedures since   |
|               |                                | the last review;   |
|               |                                | and, if so,        |
|               |                                | whether those      |
|               |                                | changes comply     |
|               |                                | with requirements  |
|               |                                | of 34 CFR          |
|               |                                | §§300.111, 300.201 |
|               |                                | and 300.301        |
|               |                                | through 300.311;   |
|               |                                | and review of the  |
|               |                                | district\'s        |
|               |                                | practices for      |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | these              |
|               |                                | requirements.      |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 11\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | The State reported |
| of children   | data for this indicator are    | that noncompliance |
| with parental | 85.44%. These data represent   | identified in FFY  |
| consent to    | progress from the FFY 2005     | 2005 with the      |
| evaluate, who | data of 84.62%. The State did  | timely evaluations |
| were          | not meet its FFY 2006 target   | requirements in 34 |
| evaluated     | of 100%.                       | CFR §300.301(c)(1) |
| within 60     |                                | was partially      |
| days (or      | The State reported that 105 of | corrected. The     |
| State         | 111 findings of noncompliance  | State must         |
| established   | identified in FFY 2005 were    | demonstrate, in    |
| timeline).    | corrected in a timely manner.  | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | For the uncorrected            | due February 1,    |
| \[Compliance  | noncompliance the State        | 2009, that the     |
| Indicator\]   | reported that the LEAs were    | uncorrected        |
|               | required to: (1) review their  | noncompliance was  |
|               | data by school and identify    | corrected.         |
|               | barriers to compliance and     |                    |
|               | submit, for approval by the    | The State must     |
|               | State, the review along with   | review its         |
|               | targeted improvement           | improvement        |
|               | activities in the March 15,    | activities and     |
|               | 2008 submission of the LEA's   | revise them, if    |
|               | Continuous Improvement         | appropriate, to    |
|               | Performance Plan (CIPP); and,  | ensure they will   |
|               | (2) submit data on a quarterly | enable the State   |
|               | basis for review and           | to provide data in |
|               | verification by the State.     | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               |                                | due February 1,    |
|               |                                | 2009,              |
|               |                                | demonstrating that |
|               |                                | the State is in    |
|               |                                | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the timely         |
|               |                                | evaluation         |
|               |                                | requirements in 34 |
|               |                                | CFR                |
|               |                                | §300.301(c)(1),    |
|               |                                | including          |
|               |                                | reporting          |
|               |                                | correction of the  |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in the  |
|               |                                | FFY 2006 APR.      |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 12. Percent   | The State revised the          | The State reported |
|     of        | improvement activities for     | that noncompliance |
|     children  | this indicator in its SPP and  | identified in FFY  |
|     referred  | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | 2004 and FFY 2005  |
|     by Part C |                                | with the early     |
|     prior to  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | childhood          |
|     age 3,    | data for this indicator are    | transition         |
|     who are   | 72.27%. These data represent   | requirements in 34 |
|     found     | progress from the FFY 2005     | CFR §300.124(b)    |
|     eligible  | data of 48.4%. The State did   | was partially      |
|     for Part  | not meet its FFY 2006 target   | corrected. The     |
|     B, and    | of 100%.                       | State must         |
|     who have  |                                | demonstrate, in    |
|     an IEP    | For noncompliance identified   | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|     developed | in FFY 2004, the State         | due February 1,    |
|     and       | reported that 11 out of 14     | 2009, that the     |
|               | LEAs timely corrected          | uncorrected        |
|   implemented | noncompliance. For the         | noncompliance was  |
|     by their  | uncorrected noncompliance, the | corrected.         |
|     third     | State reported that the LEAs   |                    |
|               | were required to: (1) submit   | The State must     |
|    birthdays. | individual district technical  | review its         |
|               | assistance plans that included | improvement        |
| \[Compliance  | a revision and submission of   | activities and     |
| Indicator\]   | the 2005-2006 CIPP with        | revise them, if    |
|               | revised improvement            | appropriate, to    |
|               | activities; (2) submit         | ensure they will   |
|               | quarterly transition data to   | enable the State   |
|               | the State for monitoring and   | to provide data in |
|               | verification; and (3) receive  | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | an on-site technical           | due February 1,    |
|               | assistance visit by the State  | 2009,              |
|               | to review polices, practices   | demonstrating that |
|               | and procedures to identify     | the State is in    |
|               | specific issues.               | compliance with    |
|               |                                | the early          |
|               | For the noncompliance          | childhood          |
|               | identified in FFY 2005, 92 out | transition         |
|               | of 98 LEAs timely corrected    | requirements in 34 |
|               | the noncompliance. For the     | CFR §300.124(b),   |
|               | uncorrected noncompliance, the | including          |
|               | State reported that the LEAs   | reporting          |
|               | were required to: (1) submit   | correction of the  |
|               | individual district technical  | noncompliance      |
|               | assistance plans that included | identified in the  |
|               | a revision and submission of   | FFY 2006 APR.      |
|               | the 2006-2007 CIPP with data   |                    |
|               | comparison and revised         |                    |
|               | improvement activities by      |                    |
|               | March 15, 2008 and completed   |                    |
|               | Transition Plans with steps,   |                    |
|               | timelines, and                 |                    |
|               | roles/responsibilities by May  |                    |
|               | 15, 2008; (2) submit quarterly |                    |
|               | transition data to the State   |                    |
|               | for monitoring and             |                    |
|               | verification; and (3) receive  |                    |
|               | an on-site technical           |                    |
|               | assistance visit by the State  |                    |
|               | to review polices, practices   |                    |
|               | and procedures to identify     |                    |
|               | specific issues.               |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 13\. Percent  | The State revised the          | The State reported |
| of youth aged | improvement activities for     | that noncompliance |
| 16 and above  | this indicator in its SPP and  | identified in FFY  |
| with an IEP   | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | 2005 with the      |
| that includes |                                | secondary          |
| coordinated,  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | transition         |
| measurable,   | data for this indicator are    | requirements in 34 |
| annual IEP    | 72.54%. These data represent   | CFR §300.320(b)    |
| goals and     | progress from the FFY 2005     | was partially      |
| transition    | data of 60%. The State did not | corrected. The     |
| services that | meet its FFY 2006 target of    | State must         |
| will          | 100%.                          | demonstrate, in    |
| reasonably    |                                | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
| enable the    | The State reported that 78 of  | due February 1,    |
| student to    | 88 findings of noncompliance   | 2009, that the     |
| meet the      | identified in FFY 2005 were    | uncorrected        |
| p             | corrected in a timely manner.  | noncompliance was  |
| ost-secondary | For the remaining uncorrected  | corrected.         |
| goals.        | noncompliance, the State       |                    |
|               | reported that the LEAs were    | The State must     |
| \[Compliance  | put on notice that the         | review its         |
| Indicator\]   | remaining 46 records are to be | improvement        |
|               | corrected and documentation of | activities and     |
|               | the correction submitted with  | revise them, if    |
|               | the CIPP on March 15, 2008.    | appropriate, to    |
|               | The LEAs were also required    | ensure they will   |
|               | to: (1) meet with State        | enable the State   |
|               | personnel to review all of the | to provide data in |
|               | activities described in the    | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | CIPP and revise as necessary;  | due February 1,    |
|               | and (2) conduct mandatory      | 2009,              |
|               | staff development, coordinated | demonstrating that |
|               | with the State, of all staff   | the State is in    |
|               | serving students with IEPs 14  | compliance with    |
|               | and above.                     | the secondary      |
|               |                                | transition         |
|               |                                | requirements in 34 |
|               |                                | CFR §300.320(b),   |
|               |                                | including          |
|               |                                | reporting          |
|               |                                | correction of the  |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in the  |
|               |                                | FFY 2006 APR.      |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 14\. Percent  | The State provided baseline    | OSEP looks forward |
| of youth who  | data, targets and improvement  | to reviewing the   |
| had IEPs, are | activities for this indicator  | State's data in    |
| no longer in  | in its SPP and OSEP accepts    | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
| secondary     | the SPP for this indicator.    | due February 1,    |
| school and    |                                | 2009.              |
| who have been | The State's FFY 2006 reported  |                    |
| competitively | baseline data for this         |                    |
| employed,     | indicator are 75%.             |                    |
| enrolled in   |                                |                    |
| some type of  |                                |                    |
| postsecondary |                                |                    |
| school, or    |                                |                    |
| both, within  |                                |                    |
| one year of   |                                |                    |
| leaving high  |                                |                    |
| school.       |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator;    |                                |                    |
| New\]         |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 15\. General  | The State revised the          | OSEP's June 15,    |
| supervision   | improvement activities for     | 2007 FFY 2005      |
| system        | this indicator in its SPP and  | SPP/APR response   |
| (including    | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | table required the |
| monitoring,   |                                | State to include   |
| complaints,   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | in the FFY 2006    |
| hearings,     | data for this indicator are    | APR, due February  |
| etc.)         | 88.24%. These data represent   | 1, 2008, data that |
| identifies    | progress from the revised FFY  | are consistent     |
| and corrects  | 2005 data of 79.45%. The State | with the required  |
| noncompliance | did not meet its FFY 2006      | measurement for    |
| as soon as    | target of 100%.                | FFY 2005 and FFY   |
| possible but  |                                | 2006. The State    |
| in no case    | For the noncompliance          | provided the       |
| later than    | identified in FFY 2005, the    | required data.     |
| one year from | State reported that 570 out of |                    |
| id            | 646 findings of noncompliance  | The State must     |
| entification. | were corrected in a timely     | demonstrate, in    |
|               | manner.                        | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
| \[Compliance  |                                | due February 1,    |
| Indicator\]   | For the uncorrected            | 2009, that the     |
|               | noncompliance, the State       | State has          |
|               | reported that each LEA will be | corrected the      |
|               | required to meet with State    | remaining          |
|               | personnel to review all        | noncompliance      |
|               | activities described in its    | identified in      |
|               | CIPP and revise as             | Indicator 15 from  |
|               | appropriate, and submit a      | FFY 2004 and FFY   |
|               | comprehensive training plan to | 2005.              |
|               | the State by March 14, 2008,   |                    |
|               | and the State will conduct an  | The State must     |
|               | on-site verification visit to  | review its         |
|               | verify correction of records.  | improvement        |
|               |                                | activities and     |
|               | The State also reported that   | revise, if         |
|               | 290 of 365 findings of         | appropriate, to    |
|               | noncompliance identified in    | ensure they will   |
|               | FFY 2004 were corrected in a   | enable the State   |
|               | timely manner, and an          | to provide data in |
|               | additional 65 out of the       | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
|               | remaining 75 findings of       | due February 1,    |
|               | noncompliance have since been  | 2009,              |
|               | corrected. The State did not   | demonstrating that |
|               | provide information on the     | the State timely   |
|               | correction of the remaining 10 | corrected          |
|               | findings of noncompliance.     | 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 10, 11, |
|               |                                | 12, and 13, the    |
|               |                                | State must         |
|               |                                | specifically       |
|               |                                | identify and       |
|               |                                | address the        |
|               |                                | noncompliance      |
|               |                                | identified in this |
|               |                                | table under those  |
|               |                                | indicators.        |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 16\. Percent  | The State revised the          | The State must     |
| of signed     | improvement activities for     | review its         |
| written       | this indicator in its SPP and  | improvement        |
| complaints    | OSEP accepts those revisions.  | activities and     |
| with reports  |                                | revise them, if    |
| issued that   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | appropriate, to    |
| were resolved | data for this indicator are    | ensure they will   |
| within 60-day | 91.67%. These data represent   | enable the State   |
| timeline or a | progress from the FFY 2005     | to provide data in |
| timeline      | data of 86.67%. The State did  | the FFY 2007 APR,  |
| extended for  | not meet its FFY 2006 target   | due February 1,    |
| exceptional   | of 100%.                       | 2009,              |
| circumstances |                                | demonstrating that |
| with respect  |                                | the State is in    |
| to a          |                                | compliance with    |
| particular    |                                | the timely         |
| complaint.    |                                | complaint          |
|               |                                | resolution         |
| \[Compliance  |                                | requirements in 34 |
| Indicator\]   |                                | CFR §300.152.      |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 17\. Percent  | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | OSEP appreciates   |
| of fully      | data for this indicator are    | the State's        |
| adjudicated   | 100%. These data are based on  | efforts in         |
| due process   | two hearings. These data       | achieving          |
| hearing       | represent progress from the    | compliance with    |
| requests that | FFY 2005 data of 67%. The      | the timely due     |
| were fully    | State met its FFY 2006 target  | process hearing    |
| adjudicated   | of 100%.                       | resolution         |
| within the    |                                | requirements in 34 |
| 45-day        |                                | CFR §300.515.      |
| timeline or a |                                |                    |
| timeline that |                                |                    |
| is properly   |                                |                    |
| extended by   |                                |                    |
| the hearing   |                                |                    |
| officer at    |                                |                    |
| the request   |                                |                    |
| of either     |                                |                    |
| party.        |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Compliance  |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 18\. Percent  | The State revised the targets  | OSEP looks forward |
| of hearing    | for this indicator in its SPP  | to the State's     |
| requests that | and OSEP accepts those         | data demonstrating |
| went to       | revisions.                     | improvement in     |
| resolution    |                                | performance in the |
| sessions that | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
| were resolved | data for this indicator are    | February 1, 2009.  |
| through       | 75%. The State did not meet    |                    |
| resolution    | its FFY 2006 target of 86%.    |                    |
| session       |                                |                    |
| settlement    |                                |                    |
| agreements.   |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Results     |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 19\. Percent  | The State revised the targets  | OSEP looks forward |
| of mediations | for this indicator in its SPP  | to the State's     |
| held that     | and OSEP accepts those         | data demonstrating |
| resulted in   | revisions.                     | improvement in     |
| mediation     |                                | performance in the |
| agreements.   | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | FFY 2007 APR, due  |
|               | data for this indicator are    | February 1, 2009.  |
| \[Results     | 83%. The State did not meet    |                    |
| Indicator\]   | its FFY 2006 target of 84%.    |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+
| 20\. State    | The State added an improvement | OSEP appreciates   |
| reported data | activity for this indicator in | the State's        |
| (618 and      | its SPP and OSEP accepts that  | efforts in         |
| State         | revision.                      | achieving          |
| Performance   |                                | compliance with    |
| Plan and      | The State's FFY 2006 reported  | IDEA sections 616  |
| Annual        | data for this indicator are    | and 618 and 34 CFR |
| Performance   | 100%. The State met its FFY    | §§76.720 and       |
| Report) are   | 2006 target of 100%.           | 300.601(b).        |
| timely and    |                                |                    |
| accurate.     |                                |                    |
|               |                                |                    |
| \[Compliance  |                                |                    |
| Indicator\]   |                                |                    |
+---------------+--------------------------------+--------------------+