# Virginia

# Table B -- Part B

# Previously-Identified Issues 

+---------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Issue**           | **State           | **OSEP      | **Required   |
|                     | Submission**      | Analysis**  | Action**     |
+=====================+===================+=============+==============+
| **Indicator 4**     | In the SPP, the   | In the SPP, | With its     |
|                     | State provided    | the State   | APR, due     |
| The State's FFY     | data showing that | d           | February 1,  |
| 2003 APR provided   | it conducted the  | emonstrated | 2007, the    |
| State-level data    | comparison of     | that it is  | State must,  |
| comparing the rates | district data, as | conducting  | as part of   |
| of suspensions and  | required by 34    | the         | its response |
| expulsions for      | CFR §300.146(a).  | comparison  | to Indicator |
| children with       | On pages 17-18,   | required by | 4, report on |
| disabilities to     | the State         | 34 CFR      | the results  |
| children without    | indicated, as     | §           | of its       |
| disabilities.       | part of its       | 300.146(a), | review,      |
| However, the State  | Improvement       | and that it | under 34 CFR |
| did not provide any | Activities, that  | has a plan  | §300.146(b), |
| information         | its follow-up     | to conduct  | of policies, |
| comparing the rates | with districts    | the review  | procedures,  |
| across school       | with significant  | (and, if    | and          |
| divisions, as       | discrepancies     | necessary,  | practices    |
| required by 34 CFR  | will include      | revision)   | related to   |
| §300.146(a)(2).     | review of their   | of policies | the          |
| OSEP's October 14,  | local policies    | and         | development  |
| 2005 response       | and procedures    | procedures  | and          |
| required the State, | and revision of   | required by | im           |
| no later than       | those policies    | 34 CFR      | plementation |
| December 2, 2005,   | and procedures    | §           | of IEPs, the |
| to either: (1)      | where needed.     | 300.146(b). | use of       |
| demonstrate it was  |                   | The State's | behavioral   |
| complying with 34   |                   | plan,       | in           |
| CFR §300.146; or    |                   | however,    | terven­tions, |
| (2) submit a plan   |                   | did not, as | and          |
| to ensure the       |                   | required by | procedural   |
| correction of the   |                   | 34 CFR      | safeguards,  |
| noncompliance as    |                   | §300.146(b) | to ensure    |
| soon as possible    |                   | also        | that they    |
| and not more than   |                   | provide for | comply with  |
| one year after OSEP |                   | the review  | Part B.      |
| accepted the plan.  |                   | of          |              |
| The final report    |                   | [p          |              |
| under the plan      |                   | ractices]{. |              |
| would be due 30     |                   | underline}. |              |
| days following the  |                   |             |              |
| end of the one-year |                   |             |              |
| timeline.           |                   |             |              |
+---------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+
| ### Indicator 9     | On page 30 of the | The State   | The State    |
|                     | SPP, the State    | provided a  | must ensure  |
| With regard to      | indicated that it | plan to     | that the     |
| disproportionality, | was researching   | conduct the | n            |
| OSEP's July 22,     | different         | required    | oncompliance |
| 2004 response to    | methodologies for | review and  | with the     |
| the State's FFY     | determining       | to ensure   | requirements |
| 2002 APR required   | whether           | correction  | of 34 CFR    |
| the State to        | disproportionate  | of the      | §300.755(b)  |
| include in its FFY  | representation    | non         | is           |
| 2003 APR, the       | exists for racial | compliance. | corrected,   |
| results of its      | and ethnic groups |             | and include  |
| review of the       | in the population |             | the results  |
| policies,           | of children with  |             | of its       |
| procedures and      | disabilities. The |             | review under |
| practices used in   | State indicated   |             | this         |
| the identification  | that: (1) once    |             | section, in  |
| and placement of    | the methodology   |             | the APR, due |
| children with       | is adopted, it    |             | February 1,  |
| disabilities to     | would make a      |             | 2007. The    |
| ensure they are     | decision on how   |             | State should |
| consistent with     | to include a      |             | review and,  |
| Part B, when it     | determination as  |             | if necessary |
| identifies          | to whether the    |             | revise, its  |
| significant         | disproportionate  |             | improvement  |
| disproportionality  | representation is |             | strategies   |
| under 34 CFR        | the result of     |             | included in  |
| §300.755. The       | inappropriate     |             | the SPP, to  |
| State's FFY 2003    | identification;   |             | ensure they  |
| APR did not include | (2) data          |             | will enable  |
| those results.      | collected from    |             | the State to |
| OSEP's October 14,  | the 2005-2006     |             | include data |
| 2005 response to    | school year would |             | in the APR,  |
| the FFY 2003 APR    | be used for the   |             | that         |
| required the State  | analysis; and (3) |             | demonstrate  |
| to submit, not      | the State would   |             | full         |
| later than December | review policies,  |             | compliance   |
| 2, 2005, a plan to  | procedures and    |             | with this    |
| ensure correction   | practices when    |             | r            |
| of the              | disproportionate  |             | equirement.  |
| noncompliance, as   | representation is |             | Failure to   |
| soon as possible    | identified. The   |             | demonstrate  |
| and not more than   | State explained   |             | compliance   |
| one year after OSEP | that follow-up    |             | at that time |
| accepted the plan.  | monitoring of     |             | may affect   |
|                     | changes and       |             | OSEP's       |
|                     | revisions to      |             | d            |
|                     | policies,         |             | etermination |
|                     | procedures and    |             | of the       |
|                     | practices has     |             | State's      |
|                     | been, and will    |             | status under |
|                     | continue to be,   |             | section      |
|                     | part of the       |             | 616(d) of    |
|                     | State's focused   |             | the IDEA.    |
|                     | monitoring.       |             |              |
+---------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Indicator 12**    | As further        | The State   | The State    |
|                     | explained in the  | set forth a | must ensure  |
| 34 CFR §300.132     | discussion of     | plan to     | that the     |
| requires that       | Indicator 12 in   | ensure      | n            |
| children            | Table A, the      | correction  | oncompliance |
| participating in    | State did not     | of the      | is           |
| early intervention  | include a         | no          | corrected,   |
| programs under Part | baseline for this | ncompliance | and include  |
| C who will          | Indicator in its  | with 34 CFR | data in the  |
| participate in      | SPP. However, on  | §           | APR, due     |
| preschool programs  | pages 37-38 of    | 300.132(b). | February 1,  |
| under Part B,       | the SPP, the      |             | 2007, that   |
| experience a smooth | State included a  |             | demonstrate  |
| and effective       | plan to collect   |             | compliance   |
| transition to those | data regarding    |             | with this    |
| preschool programs, | compliance with   |             | requirement. |
| and that by the     | 34 CFR            |             | The State    |
| third birthday of   | §300.132(b) and   |             | should       |
| such a child, an    | to ensure         |             | review and,  |
| individualized      | compliance with   |             | if necessary |
| education program   | that requirement. |             | revise, its  |
| (IEP) or, if        | The State plans   |             | improvement  |
| consistent with 34  | to use its        |             | strategies   |
| CFR §§300.342(c)    | 6-year,           |             | included in  |
| and 636(d) of the   | three-phase       |             | the SPP to   |
| IDEA, an            | monitoring cycle  |             | ensure they  |
| individualized      | that includes     |             | will enable  |
| family service plan | self-assessments, |             | the State to |
| (IFSP), has been    | on-site           |             | include data |
| developed and is    | verification      |             | in the APR   |
| being implemented   | visits, and       |             | that         |
| for the child. As   | follow-up         |             | demonstrate  |
| noted in OSEP's     | desk-audits or    |             | full         |
| October 14, 2005    | additional        |             | compliance   |
| response to the     | on-site visits to |             | with this    |
| State's FFY 2003    | ensure compliance |             | r            |
| APR, the APR        | with this         |             | equirement.  |
| included            | requirement. On   |             | Failure to   |
| information showing | page 38, the      |             | demonstrate  |
| noncompliance with  | State included,   |             | compliance   |
| those requirements. | as Improvement    |             | at that time |
| VDOE indicated      | Activities for    |             | may affect   |
| that, for the       | 2005-2006,        |             | OSEP's       |
| 2003-2004 school    | revising the      |             | d            |
| year, 1,492         | on-site           |             | etermination |
| children referred   | monitoring        |             | of the       |
| by Part C were      | process to        |             | State's      |
| found eligible for  | require local     |             | status under |
| Part B services;    | divisions to      |             | section      |
| however, only 1,256 | maintain data,    |             | 616(d) of    |
| children were       | conducting        |             | the IDEA.    |
| reported served     | meetings between  |             |              |
| under Part B. VDOE  | Part C and Part B |             |              |
| provided no         | personnel to      |             |              |
| explanation for the | discussion        |             |              |
| other 236 children  | transition        |             |              |
| (15 %). OSEP's      | issues,           |             |              |
| letter required the | disseminating     |             |              |
| State to submit, no | information and   |             |              |
| later than December | guidance          |             |              |
| 2, 2005, a plan to  | regarding         |             |              |
| ensure correction   | transition from   |             |              |
| of the              | Part C to Part B, |             |              |
| noncompliance as    | and updating and  |             |              |
| soon as possible,   | disseminating the |             |              |
| and not later than  | *Early Childhood  |             |              |
| one year from the   | Transition from   |             |              |
| date OSEP accepted  | Part C Early      |             |              |
| the plan.           | Intervention to   |             |              |
|                     | Part B Special    |             |              |
|                     | Education and     |             |              |
|                     | Other Services    |             |              |
|                     | for Young         |             |              |
|                     | Children with     |             |              |
|                     | Disabilities*     |             |              |
|                     | document.         |             |              |
+---------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+
| **Indicator 15**    | On page 46 of the | The State   | With regard  |
|                     | SPP, the State    | reported    | to the       |
| OSEP's October 14,  | reported, in      | data        | timely       |
| 2005 letter         | response to       | showing     | correction   |
| required the State  | Indicators 15A    | full        | of           |
| to submit, by       | and 15B, that it  | correction  | n            |
| December 2, 2005,   | had ensured the   | of the      | oncompliance |
| evidence that the   | correction of all | previously  | identified   |
| State was fully     | noncompliance     | -identified | through      |
| meeting the         | identified        | no          | monitoring   |
| requirement to      | through           | ncompliance | and due      |
| ensure the          | monitoring within | with the    | process      |
| correction of       | one year from     | r           | hearings,    |
| noncompliance       | identification.   | equirements | OSEP looks   |
| within one year of  | The State         | at 34 CFR   | forward to   |
| the State's         | reported that     | §300.600,   | reviewing    |
| identification of   | 100% of the       | 20 U.S.C.   | data in the  |
| that noncompliance  | requirements      | 1           | APR, due     |
| through their       | related to both   | 232d(b)(3), | February 1,  |
| monitoring process  | priority areas    | and 34 CFR  | 2007,        |
| (34 CFR §300.600,   | and indicators    | §76.770, as | d            |
| 20 U.S.C.           | and areas not     | they apply  | emonstrating |
| 1232d(b)(3), and 34 | included in the   | to the      | continued    |
| CFR §76.770).       | monitoring        | timely      | compliance   |
|                     | priority areas    | correction  | with these   |
|                     | and indicators    | of          | r            |
|                     | found in          | no          | equirements. |
|                     | noncompliance     | ncompliance |              |
|                     | were corrected    | identified  | With regard  |
|                     | within one year   | through     | to the       |
|                     | of                | monitoring  | timely       |
|                     | identification.   | and due     | correction   |
|                     |                   | process     | of           |
|                     | On page 50, in    | hearings.   | n            |
|                     | response to       | OSEP        | oncompliance |
|                     | Indicator 15C,    | appreciates | identified   |
|                     | the State         | the State's | through      |
|                     | reported that     | efforts in  | complaints,  |
|                     | 91.4% of          | ensuring    | OSEP looks   |
|                     | noncompliance     | compliance  | forward to   |
|                     | identified        | with these  | reviewing    |
|                     | through           | re          | data in the  |
|                     | complaints were   | quirements. | APR, due     |
|                     | corrected within  |             | February 1,  |
|                     | one year and that | The State   | 2007, that   |
|                     | 100% of           | reported a  | demonstrate  |
|                     | noncompliance     | 91.4% level | full         |
|                     | findings in due   | of          | compliance   |
|                     | process hearings  | compliance  | with these   |
|                     | were corrected    | with regard | r            |
|                     | within one-year   | to ensuring | equirements. |
|                     | of                | the timely  |              |
|                     | identification.   | correction  |              |
|                     |                   | of          |              |
|                     |                   | no          |              |
|                     |                   | ncompliance |              |
|                     |                   | identified  |              |
|                     |                   | through the |              |
|                     |                   | resolution  |              |
|                     |                   | of          |              |
|                     |                   | complaints. |              |
|                     |                   | While this  |              |
|                     |                   | level of    |              |
|                     |                   | compliance  |              |
|                     |                   | is below    |              |
|                     |                   | 100% and    |              |
|                     |                   | requires    |              |
|                     |                   | continued   |              |
|                     |                   | imp         |              |
|                     |                   | lementation |              |
|                     |                   | of          |              |
|                     |                   | improvement |              |
|                     |                   | activities  |              |
|                     |                   | to achieve  |              |
|                     |                   | full        |              |
|                     |                   | compliance, |              |
|                     |                   | OSEP        |              |
|                     |                   | recognizes  |              |
|                     |                   | the effort  |              |
|                     |                   | made by the |              |
|                     |                   | State in    |              |
|                     |                   | working     |              |
|                     |                   | toward      |              |
|                     |                   | compliance  |              |
|                     |                   | with this   |              |
|                     |                   | r           |              |
|                     |                   | equirement. |              |
+---------------------+-------------------+-------------+--------------+