September 22, 2005

Honorable Nena S. Nena

Secretary

Department of Health, Education, and

Social Affairs

PS70, Palikir, Pohnpei State, FSM 96941

Dear Mr. Nena:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Federated States of
Micronesia's (FSM's) April 4, 2005 submission of its Federal Fiscal Year
(FFY) 2003 Annual Performance Report (APR) under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B for the grant period July 1,
2003 through June 30, 2004. The APR reflects actual accomplishments that
the State or territory made during the reporting period, compared to
established objectives. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
has designed the APR under the IDEA to provide uniform reporting from
States and territories and result in high-quality information across
States. The APR is a significant data source for OSEP in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS).

FSM's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting of
relevant data, and include specific data-based determinations regarding
performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas. This letter
responds to FSM's FFY 2003 APR. OSEP has set out its comments, analysis
and determinations by cluster area.

*Background*

The conclusion to OSEP's January 14, 2005 letter responding to FSM's FFY
2002 APR required FSM to:

1.  Describe how it utilized data from all available sources, including
    monitoring, to identify and remediate systemic issues throughout the
    Federated States;

2.  Provide evidence of correction of noncompliance related to the
    submission of accurate and timely data under §618 of IDEA;

3.  Demonstrate that all needed interagency agreements met the
    requirements of 34 CFR §300.142;

4.  Submit either documentation of data, targets for improved
    performance and strategies to achieve those targets for skills of
    preschool children with disabilities, or a plan to collect the data,
    to demonstrate that early language/communication, pre-reading, and
    social-emotional skills of preschool children with disabilities
    receiving special education and related services were improving;

5.  Submit graduation and drop-out data collected through FSM's new
    comprehensive data system; and

6.  Submit data and its analysis, along with a determination of
    compliance or noncompliance with 34 CFR §300.146 to determine if
    significant discrepancies were occurring in the rate of long-term
    suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities compared to
    the rates for nondisabled children or compared among public
    agencies. Where the State determined that significant discrepancies
    were occurring, it had to review and, if appropriate, revise (or
    require the affected State agency or LEA to revise) its policies,
    procedures and practices relating to the development and
    implementation of individualized education programs (IEPs), the use
    of behavioral interventions, and procedural safeguards to ensure
    that the policies, procedures and practices complied with Part B.

    FSM was also required to include data and its analysis, along with a
    determination of compliance or noncompliance in the areas below. If
    the data demonstrated noncompliance, the State had to include a plan
    with strategies, proposed evidence of change, targets and timelines
    designed to ensure correction of the noncompliance within a
    reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year from the date when
    OSEP accepted the plan. If data were not available, FSM had to
    include a plan in the FFY 2003 APR to describe how it collected data
    to enable it to determine compliance or noncompliance with the
    following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Identifying and correcting noncompliance in a timely manner on the
    results of its visits to verify FSM Program Standards, and include
    data and analysis along with a determination of compliance or
    noncompliance regarding Part B monitoring requirements;

2.  The effect of deficiencies in numbers of qualified personnel on the
    provision of appropriate special education and related services to
    children with disabilities in accordance with their individualized
    education programs (IEPs);

3.  The requirements at 34 CFR §§300.125 and 300.300(a)(1) regarding
    child find and the provision of FAPE;

4.  The requirements at 34 CFR §§300.138 and 300.139 regarding the
    participation and performance of children with disabilities in
    statewide assessments and alternate assessments, along with
    reporting publicly and to the Secretary on participation and
    performance;

5.  The requirements at 34 CFR §300.552(b)(2) regarding the placement of
    children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment
    based on the requirements of the children's IEPs; and

6.  The requirements at 34 CFR §§300.347(b) and 300.348(b) regarding the
    documentation and provision of secondary transition services for
    children with disabilities.

General Supervision

[Identification and timely correction of noncompliance]{.underline}

OSEP required FSM in the FFY 2002 APR to respond to the probe: "Do
general supervision instruments and procedures used by the SEA, identify
and correct IDEA noncompliance in a timely manner?" and provide data
regarding the results of its visits to verify FSM Program Standards. FSM
was also required to include data and analysis along with a
determination of compliance or noncompliance regarding Part B monitoring
requirements. If data were not available, FSM had to include a plan in
the FFY 2003 APR that described how FSM would collect data to enable it
to determine compliance or noncompliance.

On pages 2-6 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM provided a description of the
current status of its revised monitoring system, including the alignment
of FSM's monitoring system to OSEP's CIFMS for: (1) monitoring of all
Part B requirements; (2) a quarterly report from each FSM State of
fiscal, compliance, and performance data; (3) a process to ensure
correction of noncompliance; and (4) a schedule for the monitoring of
each of its four States on an annual cycle. FSM reported that each State
received a monitoring visit annually that included child record reviews
and parent and staff interviews. FSM reported the results and
enforcement actions for two island states on page six of the APR.
(Because of the timing of the submission of the APR, the results of the
other two island states were not available.) OSEP appreciates FSM's
efforts in ensuring compliance with these monitoring requirements and
looks forward to updated data reporting on improved performance and
compliance in this area in the State Performance Report (SPP) due
December 2, 2005.

With regard to the timely correction of identified noncompliance, FSM
utilizes the following procedures. On page 3, FSM explained that
FSM-HESA (Department of Health, Education and Social Affairs) provides a
*Letter of Concern* to the State Director of Education, with a copy to
the State Special Education Program Coordinator, citing non­compliance
findings during the monitoring and verification of data 10 calendar days
after the findings from the state quarterly progress report review
and/or the on-site monitoring/verification visit. Corrective actions or
practices required of the state are included in the *Letter of Concern*
to ensure that noncompliance areas are corrected in a timely manner. The
State must develop a corrective action plan and submit it to the
Secretary of FSM-HESA, with a copy to the Executive Director of FSM-HESA
Special Education Program, within 30 calendar days. The State is allowed
up to one calendar year to correct noncompliance(s) upon approval of the
corrective action plan by FSM-HESA.

On page 4, FSM explained that with the 2003-04 revisions to its
monitoring system, the monitoring system both identifies noncompliance
and includes "enforcement actions" to ensure correction of noncompliance
in a timely manner. While FSM's procedures describe detailed follow-up
steps that FSM takes to ensure correction of identified noncompliance,
including the use of sanctions where appropriate, FSM may not use a
timeline of one year from the date the State approves a corrective
action plan in response to notification of noncompliance. Under 20
U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E) and 34 CFR §300.600, FSM must ensure the timely
correction of noncompliance identified through monitoring as soon as
possible, not to exceed one year of identification. In the SPP due
December 2, 2005, FSM must either provide evidence that its monitoring
procedures require the correction of noncompliance, identified through
monitoring, as soon as possible, not to exceed one year from
identification and not from the date of approval of a corrective action
plan, or amended monitoring procedures that ensure timely correction of
identified noncompliance within one year of identification.

[Identification and remediation of systemic issues]{.underline}

OSEP required FSM in its January 2005 letter to include information
describing how it utilized data from all available sources, including
monitoring, to identify and remediate systemic issues throughout the
Federated States. On pages 10-11 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM included a
description of the various methods it utilized, including quarterly
progress reports, monitoring visits, and prioritizing issues through its
Steering Committee. FSM presented a plan that described timelines for
identifying issues from the data it collected. OSEP appreciates the work
FSM has done in ensuring compliance with these requirements.

Dispute resolution \-- complaint investigations, mediations, and due
process hearings and\
reviews

In the FFY 2002 APR, FSM reported that there were no requests for
complaint investigations, mediations, and due process hearings. In
Attachment 1 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM also reported that there were no
requests for complaint investigations, mediations, and due process
hearings from July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2005. In the FFY 2002 APR, FSM
questioned whether the lack of requests was due to a lack of awareness
by parents and staff regarding dispute resolution procedures. On page 7
of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM described various activities it utilized,
including its annual parent conference and increased dissemination and
training activities for parents on dispute resolution, mediation, and
due process hearings. FSM also reported that, through its monitoring
visits, it required two island states to operationalize dissemination
activities for dispute resolution. OSEP appreciates the work of FSM in
ensuring compliance with these requirements and looks forward to
reviewing the State's data around dispute resolution in the SPP.

[Personnel]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required FSM to address what effect
deficiencies in numbers of qualified personnel had on the provision of
appropriate special education and related services to children with
disabilities in accordance with their IEPs, consistent with 34 CFR
§300.300. On pages 12-16 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM reported on the
certification status of its special education personnel. FSM reported
that 108 of 206 (53 percent) special education teachers were certified
according to State standards. FSM noted on page 15 that the 2003-2004
percentages of fully certified special education teachers remained
similar to the percentages reported for 2002-2003. FSM provided targets,
future activities, timelines, and resources to implement its National
CSPD (Comprehensive System of Personnel Development) Plan and data
tracking system for special education personnel. OSEP accepts this plan
and appreciates the work of FSM in ensuring the provision of FAPE to
children with disabilities in the face of personnel shortages. With
respect to early childhood education, FSM reported on pages 19-22 on the
status of its data collection for the early childhood population as well
as its activities related to training and certification of personnel
serving preschool children with disabilities. OSEP appreciates the work
FSM is doing to ensure improved performance and compliance in this area.

[Collection and timely reporting of accurate data]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required FSM to provide evidence that it was
reporting accurate and timely data, submitted under §618 of IDEA. On
pages 17-18 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM reported that its data system was
able to generate all §618 data tables and reports, and that
implementation of its comprehensive data collection system for special
and general education was targeted for August 2004. OSEP appreciates the
work of FSM in ensuring compliance with these requirements and looks
forward to reviewing the State's data in this area as part of the SPP.

[Other Areas: Interagency agreements]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required FSM to demonstrate that all needed
interagency agreements met the requirements of 34 CFR §300.142. On pages
5 and 7 of its APR, FSM reported that two of the four island states had
updated agreements and that there were current agreements in the other
two island states between Education, Health Services, and Head Start.
FSM indicated it was able to ensure that these interagency agreements
met the requirements of 34 CFR §300.142 through its on-site monitoring
visits, and OSEP is satisfied that concerns regarding FSM's interagency
agreements have been addressed.

[Other Areas: Child find]{.underline}

In its January 2005 letter, OSEP indicated that it was unable to
determine compliance with the implementation of the child find
requirements at 34 CFR §§300.125 and 300.300(a)(1) because children with
disabilities may not have been identified at an early age in order to
ensure FAPE. On pages 8-11 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM reported trends from
its data on identification rates. FSM reported on page 8 of the APR that
it increased the number of children with disabilities served in special
education and related services by 99 (or 4 percent) from 2002 to 2003.
However, OSEP also noted that the identification data for two island
states with the lowest identification rates showed the smallest gains
(+7 percent in Yap) or negative progress (-1.7 percent in Chuuk). In
school year 2003-04, FSM served 8.2 percent of students with
disabilities, of the total number of students educated by FSM, in public
and private schools. On pages 9 and 10, FSM also listed the range of
child find and public awareness activities that it implemented,
including facilitated reading screening and math assessment in each of
the island states, several times a year, for students in grades 1
through 9; workshops for staff of each island state with representatives
of the University of Guam and the Western Regional Resource Center on
developmental disabilities and national training on evaluation; and
follow-up visits by an off-island pediatrician to the various States to
facilitate the early identification of children from birth through age
5. OSEP appreciates the work of FSM in ensuring improved performance and
compliance in this area.

The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area, for which
States and territories must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR
due February 1, 2007. FSM should carefully review the instructions to
the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. In the SPP due
December 2, 2005, FSM must describe how data are to be collected for
this new indicator so that FSM will be able to report baseline data and
targets in the FFY 2005 APR due February 1, 2007. This will include how
FSM will collect data on the number of children identified in the early
grades. OSEP looks forward to reviewing this information in the SPP.

Early Childhood Transition

The instructions to this cluster ask States to report on the number of
children participating in Part C who transition to Part B of IDEA who
have an individualized education program (IEP) or individualized family
service plan (IFSP) in effect by the child's third birthday (34 CFR
§300.132(b)). FSM does not participate in Part C of IDEA---Early
Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities.

Parent Involvement

On pages 23-25 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM reported, "each Island State has
supported the development of a local Parent Organization." FSM provided
data on the parental participation on various panels and committees. FSM
set targets for facilitated parent training in the IEP process and
increasing the participation of parents to at least 50 percent on the
various steering committees. On page 23, based on the parent survey
conducted in Yap State, 77 percent of parents surveyed indicated that
they are involved in the IEP process. Based on the IEP file reviews
conducted in Pohnpei State, 59 percent of the IEPs did not have parent
signatures indicating that parents were present at the IEP meetings.

On page 24, FSM explained that through the parent organization of each
island state, parent training and meetings provide regular interactions
and discussion with service providers regarding the issues and needs of
children with disabilities and their families. On a quarterly basis,
island state-specific parent training and meetings will continue to be
reported in the island state quarterly progress report for FSM-HESA to
collect, compile, and summarize the impact of parent involvement.
Annually, the FSM National Steering Committee will review state reported
data on parent training and survey activities for prioritizing National
initiatives, such as the annual Parent­-Consumer Conference designed for
parents of children with disabilities. OSEP appreciates FSM's efforts in
this area.

The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area, for which
States and territories must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR
due February 1, 2007. FSM should carefully review the instructions to
the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. OSEP looks forward
to reviewing FSM's plan for collecting data for indicator #8 in the SPP.

***Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive
Environment***

[Disproportionality]{.underline}

On page 27 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM noted that all children with
disabilities served in special education were "Asian or Pacific
Islander." FSM reported that each Island State Steering Committee
determined that the "issues related to ethnic distribution were not
appropriate given the general and school population composition in each
Island State."

[Graduation and drop-out rates]{.underline}

# OSEP's January 2005 letter directed FSM to submit graduation and drop-out data collected through its new comprehensive data system. On pages 29-31 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM reported some data, although not all that OSEP had required regarding graduation and drop-out rates. With respect to dropouts, FSM reported a 35 percent drop-out rate for students with disabilities. On page 29, FSM explained that based on the 2003 FSM Self Assessment Report, there is no current data system to accurately compile and report graduation and drop-out rates for comparing students with disabilities to students without disabilities. Public high schools do not consistently report graduation rates. Schools also do not collect and compile suspension/expulsion and drop-out data. Kosrae reported that 18 of 22 students (almost 82 percent) graduated from high school with a diploma and four students dropped out. Kosrae reported the highest number of students graduating with high school degrees, while Chuuk had four, Pohnpei had four, and Yap had six. Chuuk also had eight students exit school with certificates.

# 

OSEP could not determine from FSM's data and analysis the status of its
graduation and drop-out rates as compared with those for nondisabled
students. The analysis of some of the data that FSM presented was not
always consistent. For example, FSM reported in Table 13 on page 29 that
70 students with disabilities exited special education in 2003-2004. In
the discussion, however, FSM based its analysis on 130 students with
disabilities who exited special education. FSM was unable to make
comparisons between students with and without disabilities because of
missing data. FSM indicated on page 30 that there were improvements in
the collection and compilation of data related to students with
disabilities.

Under §618(a)(1)(A)(iv) of IDEA 2004, States and territories are
required to report, for each year of age from age 14 through 21, the
number and percentage of children with disabilities, by race, ethnicity,
limited English proficiency status, gender, and disability category, who
stopped receiving special education and related services because of
program completion (including graduation with a regular secondary school
diploma), or other reasons, and the reasons why those children stopped
receiving special education and related services, and, under §618(a)(2),
any other information that may be required by the Secretary. FSM must
include data and analysis documenting compliance in this area in the
SPP.

Graduation and drop-out rates are indicators in the SPP due December 2,
2005, and FSM must provide data in its SPP that is responsive to these
indicators. In preparation for the submission of the SPP on December 2,
2005, FSM should carefully consider its current data collection against
the requirements related to these indicators in the SPP packet to ensure
that data will be responsive to those requirements.

> [Suspension and expulsion]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required FSM to provide data and its
analysis, along with a determination of compliance or noncompliance with
the requirements of 34 CFR §300.146, to determine if significant
discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and
expulsions of children with disabilities compared to the rates for
nondisabled children or compared across agencies, and if they are, the
results of the review of policies, procedures, and practices related to
the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of behavioral
interventions, and procedural safeguards, as required by 34 CFR
§300.146. FSM still has not provided sufficient data to make a
determination of compliance or noncompliance in this area. FSM reported
its available data on pages 29-31 of the FFY 2003 APR. FSM was unable to
make comparisons between children with and without disabilities because
there were no comparison data for children without disabilities. FSM did
not provide a comparison of data across agencies or island states within
FSM. FSM's target for this area included a comprehensive student data
system between special and general education by August 2004. On page 31,
FSM indicated that it has determined that the comparison requirement for
suspension/expulsion will be to compare rates amongst the four FSM
island states. However, as the student data system is fully implemented,
attempts to gather similar data for students without disabilities will
be done to assess the long-term implications.

Indicator #4 in the SPP under §616 of IDEA requires data on suspensions
and expulsion. In preparation for the submission of the SPP, FSM should
carefully consider its current data collection against the requirements
related to this indicator in the SPP packet to ensure that data will be
responsive to those requirements. FSM must submit responsive baseline
data regarding the percent of districts identified by FSM as having a
significant discrepancy in the rates of long-term suspensions and
expulsions in a school year (Indicator #4A).

[Statewide and districtwide assessment]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required FSM to include a plan in the FFY
2003 APR that described how FSM collected data to enable it to determine
compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of 34 CFR §§300.138
and 300.139 regarding the participation and performance of children with
disabilities in Statewide assessments and alternate assessments, along
with reporting publicly and to the Secretary on the participation and
performance of children with disabilities on Statewide assessments and
alternate assessments. FSM has developed guidelines for the
participation of children with disabilities on the National Standardized
Test (NST), its Statewide assessment, the provision of necessary and
appropriate accommodations, as well as guidelines for the participation
of children with disabilities in alternate assessments. On page 32 of
the FFY 2003 APR, FSM stated that it would collect and compile baseline
participation and performance data with the full implementation of the
NST guidelines, including guidelines for the alternate assessment. On
pages 31-32, FSM reported that data were not available during the
reporting period. FSM indicated that the University of Guam had provided
technical assistance to FSM. FSM provided a plan to administer the NST,
as well as alternate assessments, in April/May 2005. OSEP has reviewed
and accepts this plan. The State must include data and analysis
documenting progress toward compliance in the SPP and provide a final
report to OSEP, including data and analysis demonstrating compliance, no
later than May 31, 2006.

[Least restrictive environment (LRE)]{.underline}

OSEP's January 2005 letter required FSM to include in its FFY 2003 APR
data and its analysis, along with a determination of compliance or
noncompliance with the requirements at 34 CFR §300.552(b)(2) regarding
the placement of children with disabilities in the least restrictive
environment based on the needs of children with disabilities as
determined by their IEPs. In the FFY 2002 APR, OSEP was concerned that
there were limited placement options for students with disabilities, and
that as a result, placement of children with disabilities might not be
based on the child's needs as required by their IEPs (34 CFR
§300.552(b)). On page 32 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM reported that for the
3-5 age group, 48 percent of the preschoolers with disabilities received
services in an "Early Childhood Special Education Setting," whereas for
the 6-21 age group, 90 percent of the students with disabilities were
primarily in general education settings for most of the school day. On
page 33, FSM reported that 30.8 percent of the 3-5 age group and 90
percent of the 6-21 age group of children with disabilities were
primarily in general education settings for most of the day in
2002-2003. In 2003-2004, the percentage increased to 32 percent for the
3-5 age group and 97 percent for the 6-21 age group. On page 33, FSM
indicated that its monitoring system was designed to identify
noncompliance in LRE provisions and that FSM made a finding of
noncompliance when services were not provided based on the needs of the
child with a disability in one of its island States. OSEP appreciates
the work of FSM in this area.

## 

## Preschool performance outcomes

In its January 2005 letter, OSEP required FSM to submit data and
analysis regarding preschool outcomes (whether collected through
sampling, monitoring, individual IEP review, or other methods), targets
for improved performance and strategies to achieve those targets for
this area, or a plan to collect the data, including a detailed timeline
of the activities necessary to implement that plan. FSM indicated on
page 33 of the FFY 2003 APR that it had contracted with the University
of Guam to facilitate the development of National guidelines. Guidelines
for all four island states were adopted from one of the island state's
procedures. FSM indicated that procedures included a tool to monitor the
progress of all preschool children including children with disabilities.
FSM stated it would report these data to fulfill this requirement during
the 2005-2006 school year. OSEP appreciates FSM's efforts in this area
and looks forward to reviewing updated data and information in the SPP.
The SPP instructions establish a new indicator in this area, for which
States must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR due February 1,
2007. FSM should carefully review the instructions to the SPP in
developing its plans for this collection.

Secondary Transition

OSEP's January 2005 letter stated that it could not determine compliance
or performance with the requirements in 34 CFR §§300.347(b) and
300.348(b) regarding the documentation and provision of secondary
transition services for children with disabilities. OSEP required FSM to
include data and its analysis, along with a determination of compliance
or noncompliance with these requirements in the FFY 2003 APR. On pages
35-36 of the FFY 2003 APR, FSM indicated that it had contracted with the
University of Hawaii to provide training on transition planning for
secondary students with disabilities. FSM stated that it has a
monitoring system in place to identify noncompliance with secondary
transition requirements, as evidenced by findings it made in this area
in two of the island states. FSM's target and activities focused on
fully implementing its student data system to track and monitor
progress. OSEP appreciates FSM's efforts in this area and looks forward
to reviewing updated data and information in the SPP.

The SPP instructions establish two new indicators on transition (#13 and
#14), for which States must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005 APR
due February 1, 2007. The State should carefully review the instructions
to the SPP in developing its plans for this collection.

FSM did not provide data on the percentage of youth with disabilities
participating in post-school activities, although it indicated that a
national data system would be in place by July 2005. The SPP
instructions establish a new indicator on post-school outcomes, for
which States and territories must provide baseline data in the FFY 2005
APR due February 1, 2007. FSM should carefully review the instructions
to the SPP in developing its plans for this collection. In the SPP due
December 2, 2005, FSM must describe how data are to be collected for
this new indicator so that FSM will be able to report baseline data and
targets in the FFY 2005 APR due February 1, 2007. OSEP looks forward to
reviewing this information in the SPP.

Conclusion

In the State's Performance Plan, due December 2, 2005, FSM must submit
to OSEP:

1.  Evidence demonstrating how its monitoring procedures ensure the
    correction of noncompliance identified through monitoring within one
    year of identification, as required by 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(E),
    including the results of corrective actions occurring as soon as
    possible but not later than one year of identification, or a copy of
    its amended procedures ensuring the timely correction of
    noncompliance identified through monitoring as soon as possible, not
    to exceed one year of identification;

2.  Data and analysis regarding graduation and drop-out rates consistent
    with the SPP instructions;

3.  Data and analysis regarding suspensions and expulsions consistent
    with the SPP instructions; and

4.  A description of how data are to be collected so that the State will
    be able to report baseline data and targets in the FFY 2005 APR due
    December 2, 2005, for the following new indicators: child find,
    preschool outcomes, parent involvement, secondary transition, and
    post-school outcomes.

FSM must also include in the SPP data and analysis documenting progress
toward compliance with requirements at 34 CFR §§300.138-300.139
regarding statewide assessments, and provide a final report to OSEP,
including data and analysis demonstrating compliance, no later than May
31, 2006.

IDEA 2004, §616, requires each State to submit a State Performance Plan
(SPP) that measures performance on monitoring priorities and indicators
established by the Department. These priorities and indicators are, for
the most part, similar to clusters and probes in the APR. OSEP
encourages FSM to carefully consider the comments in this letter as it
prepares its SPP due December 2, 2005.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your Freely Associated State and looks forward to
collaborating with you as you continue to improve results for children
and youth with disabilities and their families. If you have questions,
please contact Ms. Judy Gregorian at (202) 245-7360.

> Sincerely,
>
> /s/Troy R. Justesen
>
> Troy R. Justesen
>
> Acting Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Mr. Makir Keller