May 27, 2004

Honorable Marilyn Howard

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Idaho Department of Education

Len B. Jordan Office Building

650 West State Street

Boise, Idaho 83720

Dear Superintendent Howard:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to the Idaho April 29, 2004
submission of its Revised Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002 Annual
Performance Report (APR) for the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) Part B funds used during the grant period July 1, 2002
through June 30, 2003.[^1] The APR reflects actual accomplishments made
by the State during the reporting period, compared to established
objectives. The APR for IDEA is designed to provide uniform reporting
from States and result in high-quality information across States.

The APR is a significant data source utilized in the Continuous
Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) implemented by the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), within the U.S. Department
of Education. The APR falls within the third component of OSEP's
four-part accountability strategy (i.e., supporting States in assessing
their performance and compliance, and in planning, implementing, and
evaluating improvement strategies) and consolidates the self-assessing
and improvement planning functions of the CIFMS into one document.
OSEP's Memorandum regarding the submission of Part B APRs directed
States to address five cluster areas: General Supervision, Early
Childhood Transition, Parent Involvement, Free Appropriate Public
Education in the Least Restrictive Environment, and Secondary
Transition.

*Background*

On February 27, 2004, OSEP responded to Idaho's Improvement Plan
Progress Report. In that response, OSEP suggested that the Idaho
Department of Education (IDE) continue to report progress in three areas
identified by the Idaho Steering Committee and IDE as areas needing
improvement and include such progress in Idaho's FFY 2002 APR. The areas
of improvement are (a) increasing the participation of stakeholders in
decision-making activities at all levels, (b) increasing the number of
personnel trained in providing services to children with disabilities in
the least restrictive environment; and (c) improving student outcomes as
a result of the Idaho Bureau of Special Education's leadership and
effective general supervision through, specifically, ensuring
enforceability of interagency agreements to provide a free appropriate
public education for children with disabilities, and ensuring the
accuracy of the data collected by IDE. OSEP and Idaho did not identify
noncompliance in the State's Self-Assessment (submitted December 2001),
in the State's Improvement Plan (submitted April 15, 2002), or in the
State's Improvement Plan Progress Report (submitted June 30, 2003). The
purpose of including the three areas of improvement in the FFY 2002 APR
is to clearly demonstrate IDE's use of data to make data-based
performance and compliance determinations.

The State's APR should reflect the collection, analysis, and reporting
of relevant data, and document data-based determinations regarding
performance and compliance in each of the cluster areas (as well as any
other areas identified by the State to ensure improvement**).** OSEP's
comments regarding each cluster area within the APR are set forth below.

## General Supervision

The State provided data and information on pages one through 15 of the
APR demonstrating that IDE's policies and procedures identified
compliance, ensured correction of noncompliance, and encouraged positive
program performance. The State has baseline and trend data, indicators,
targets, future activities, timelines, and projected resources to
address each of the following topics in this cluster: (a) effective
general supervision, (b) identification and remediation of systemic
noncompliance, (c) timely dispute resolution, (d) sufficient personnel,
and (e) accurate and timely data collection and reporting.

On pages one and two of the APR, IDE described in Table 1 the tasks used
by the State to conduct focused monitoring. Steps included such tasks as
(a) publishing data reports with local performance goals and indicators
for each LEA; (b) conducting training for LEAs to understand the
self-evaluation process; and (c) establishing data verification
protocol. In addition, IDE identified that eight of the 11 tasks are
completed. The State maintained an adequate number of trained hearing
officers to ensure dispute resolutions were addressed in a timely
manner.

On pages three through five of the APR, IDE described the steps the
State has taken to identify and remediate systemic issues found through
an analysis of data collected during the monitoring process, complaint
investigations, and hearing resolutions. The APR states that all
noncompliance is remedied within one year.

On pages six and seven of the APR, IDE reported that, of the hearings
held in 2002-2003, all hearings were completed within 45 days unless
extended by the hearing officer. The APR identified all but one
complaint met the 60-day timeline. (The one that did not meet the 60-day
timeline involved a case in which both parties sought an early complaint
resolution (ECR) and requested that the State delay its finding. When
the local school board failed to approve the agreement that the LEA
representative and parents had negotiated, the State immediately issued
its findings.) The APR also identified that 90% of the mediations were
successful.

On pages eight through 12 of the APR, IDE discussed the status of
trained personnel to meet the educational needs of all children with
disabilities in the State. (This State goal is also a component of the
State's Improvement Plan Progress Report.) The State included trend
data, indicators, explanation of progress and slippage, targets, future
activities, timelines and projected resources for reaching this goal.

On pages 13 and 14 of the APR, the State identified the goal to collect
accurate and timely data to use in reports and decision-making. The
State submits an annual report on performance indicators to each local
educational agency and to the State Legislature. Each report contained
three years of trend data. All of the reports were submitted to OSEP and
to the local educational agencies by the due dates.

***Early Childhood Transition***

On pages 15-18 of the APR, IDE discussed its performance in serving all
children eligible for Part B services by their third birthday. Based on
trend data, the number of three-year-olds on the Part B December 1 child
count and the number of children transitioning from Part C to Part B
programs were rising. The number of children whose eligibility was
undetermined at age three was 11. One of the State's indicators to
measure progress in the future was that 100% of the children exiting
Part C would have Part B eligibility determined. The State would also
monitor interagency agreements to ensure the agreements are effective
and enforceable.

***Parent Involvement***

On pages 19-22 of the APR, IDE discussed its progress in including
stakeholders in the decision-making process at all levels (individual,
school building, district, State) to ensure improved outcomes for
students with disabilities. This goal was also a goal of the State
Improvement Plan Progress Report. Idaho interviewed a random sample of
parents from each district as part of the State's monitoring process.
Ninety percent of the parents reported attending their child's last IEP
meeting and 80% reported participating in the child's placement
decision. In addition, using the National Parent Teacher Association
standards for parent and family involvement, Idaho's parent training
organization conducted a State-wide survey to determine strengths and
weaknesses of parent-school relationships and barriers to the
relationship. The State incorporated findings from the survey into the
parent interviews conducted as a part of the monitoring visit. The State
had baseline and trend data, indicators, targets, future activities,
timelines, and projected resources to address this cluster. IDE should
report the State's progress in involving parents as stakeholders in the
decision-making process in the State's next APR.

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

On pages 23-36 of the APR, IDE provided information about the State's
goals to appropriately identify and serve all students eligible for Part
B services. The State presented baseline and trend data for enrollment,
educational environment, and assignment to disability category. The data
were disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Idaho utilized the E-formula
handed down by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the *Larry P.*
case regarding the over-identification of Blacks in California. Idaho
elected to use the E-formula because it was legally defensible within
the Ninth Circuit. (The State used the .20 methodology suggested by OSEP
when the State completed Attachment 2 in the APR.) Regarding the
disproportionate enrollment, educational environment, and assignment to
a disability category, the State included the target that 100% of
identified compliance issues regarding State and local policies,
procedures, and practices when found through the monitoring process
would be remedied within one year.

The State had goals to increase the graduation rate and decrease the
dropout rate. Baseline data, targets, explanation of progress and
slippage, projected targets, future activities, projected timelines, and
projected resources were included in the APR. Targets for increasing the
graduation rate and decreasing the drop rate were exceeded. IDE
attributed the progress to the public reporting of the data and district
level monitoring interventions. IDE has a data development project in
place to meet the No Child Left Behind goal to decrease the gap between
general and special education graduates. The State will be able to
disaggregate the graduation rates for students with disabilities and
students without disabilities using the same population parameters in
the 2005-2006 school year. This will allow them to compare graduation
rates for the two populations.

The national average percentage of students with disabilities who are
suspended or expelled more than ten days in a school year was just over
1.0%. The rate in Idaho was .25% in 02-03, down from .39% in 01-02. The
State had trend data for years 1998-2003. Baseline data, targets,
explanation of progress and slippage, projected targets, future
activities, projected timelines, and projected resources were included
in the APR

The large-scale assessment in Idaho was the Idaho Standards Achievement
Test (ISAT). The State noted that consequences of the No Child Left
Behind Act motivated general educators to take an active role in
ensuring that all students with disabilities participate. The State
presented training programs on appropriate accommodations for the
assessments, monitored to determine compliance with IDEA participation
and reporting requirements, and widely reported special education
participation and performance results. The APR identified baseline data,
explanation of progress and slippage, projected targets, future
activities, projected timelines, and projected resources. In the State's
next APR, OSEP encourages Idaho to continue to report baseline data for
performance indicators and report the State's progress in narrowing the
achievement gap between students with disabilities and all students.

Idaho had a State goal to educate all students in the least restrictive
environment while maintaining a full continuum of services. The State
had baseline and trend data, targets, explanation for slippage and
progress, projected targets, future activities, timelines, and projected
resources to address this issue. Indicators for this goal included the
percentage of students who are educated in the general education
classroom greater than 80% of the day. The rate at the national level
was 47% in 1999-2000. The rate in Idaho was 66%. Since then the State
rate fell to 62%. Thirty-one percent of the students, aged three through
five years, were served in natural settings, early childhood centers,
regular kindergarten or in the home.

Targets identified in this section included percentage goals as evidence
that students with disabilities were educated in the least restrictive
environment. A goal of increasing the percentage of children with
disabilities appropriately served in less restrictive environments can
be one way for the State to measure whether it is improving services for
children with disabilities, and is consistent with the Part B
requirements that children with disabilities be served in the least
restrictive environment. In meeting the goal to increase the number of
children served in the general education classroom, however, the State
must ensure that it will continue to meet the least restrictive
environment requirements of Part B. The placement decision, including
the decision about what is the least restrictive environment for each
child, must be made consistent with the requirements of Part B. This
means that the placement decision must be made by a group of persons,
including the parents, and other persons knowledgeable about the child,
the meaning of evaluation data, and the placement options and must be
based on the child\'s individual needs as identified in his or her IEP.
34 CFR §300.552.

Thus, while it is not inconsistent with Part B of the IDEA to include a
numerical goal to increase the percentages of children with disabilities
appropriately placed in less restrictive settings, the State must
continue to monitor to ensure that placement decisions for all children
are made in conformity with the LRE requirements of Part B and not based
upon a numerical goal. Therefore, Idaho must describe in the State's
next APR how Idaho will achieve its goal of increasing the number of
children in less restrictive settings while continuing to make the full
continuum of alternative placements (instruction in regular classes,
special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in
hospitals and institutions) available and ensuring that each individual
child is placed in a setting that meets his or her identified needs
consistent with the Part B regulations.

The State of Idaho established a goal that children will enter school
with pre-literacy skills and ready to learn. The State used the
percentage of children, ages three through five years, who received
special education services and scored "at age level" scores on the
Pre-Kindergarten Idaho Reading Indicator as the performance indicator
for this goal. The State had baseline and trend data, targets,
explanation for slippage and progress, projected targets, future
activities, timelines, and projected resources to address this goal.
OSEP encourages Idaho to continue to collect baseline data and submit it
in the State's next APR.

***Secondary Transition***

On pages 37-40 of the APR, the State discussed the goal of improving
post-school outcomes for youth with disabilities to reflect
participation in post-school activities, including post-secondary
education and employment. The State established four indicators to
measure the State's performance in reaching this goal as the percentage
of youth with disabilities who were (a) attending post-secondary
programs, (b) working one year after graduation, (c) reporting average
or above average participation in their IEP development, and (d)
reporting that their high school connected them with a job, college or
community agency (such as vocational rehabilitation.) The APR data
showed that graduates with disabilities enroll in post-secondary
education at a rate of less than half of all graduates (24.5% vs.
47.8%). Data collection for the Idaho Post School Outcome Survey began
with the Class of 2000. Surveys were conducted within a month preceding
graduation and at one, three, and five years following graduation. The
State reported baseline and trend data, targets, explanation for
slippage and progress, projected targets, future activities, timelines,
and projected resources to address this goal. In the State's next APR,
OSEP encourages Idaho to continue to collect baseline data for
performance indicators and report the State's progress in improving
post-school outcomes.

## Conclusion

Idaho provided the necessary data and information to document the IDE's
ability to ensure compliance and gather performance outcome data. As
previously stated, IDE identified numerical goals in the section of the
APR addressing placement in the least restrictive environment.
Therefore, in the State's next APR, IDE must describe how Idaho will
achieve its goal of increasing the number of children in less
restrictive settings while continuing to make the full continuum of
alternative placements (instruction in regular classes, special classes,
special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and
institutions) available and ensuring that each individual child is
placed in a setting that meets his or her identified needs consistent
with the Part B regulations. Also, as noted above, OSEP suggests that
Idaho submit in the State's next APR to OSEP: (1) baseline data for
preschoolers and the State's progress in increasing the effectiveness of
interagency agreements to assist in determining Part B eligibility of
children ages three through five years; (2) progress in involving
parents as stakeholders in the decision-making process at all levels;
(3) trend data for indicators new in 2004 regarding State-wide
assessments; and (4) baseline and trend data for children who receive
special education services and who score "at age level" on the
Pre-Kindergarten Idaho Reading Indicator.

OSEP recognizes that the APR and its related activities represent only a
portion of the work in your State. We appreciate your work on the APR
and we look forward to collaborating with Idaho as you continue to
improve results for students with disabilities and their families. If
you have questions, please contact Marie Mayor at (202) 260-1392.

Sincerely,

/s/Patricia J. Guard for

> Stephanie Smith Lee
>
> Director
>
> Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Jana Jones

[^1]: The APR was first submitted to OSEP on March 31, 2004. Idaho
    revised its APR based on technical assistance provided by OSEP
    during the OSEP verification visit to Idaho during the week of April
    19, 2004.