DMS

R E P O R T

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STATE ARIZONA

DATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2020

IDEA PART B

CONTENTS

LETTER .............................................................................................................................................. 1

ENCLOSURE ....................................................................................................................................... 3
L E T T E R 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 

400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600 

www.ed.gov 

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness for global competitiveness by 

fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

LE T T E R

September 11, 2020 

SENT VIA EMAIL – CONFIRMATION OF RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Honorable Alissa Trollinger

Deputy Associate Superintendent

Exceptional Student Services

Arizona Department of Education

1535 W. Jefferson, Bin #24

Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Alissa.Trollinger@azed.gov 

Dear Deputy Associate Superintendent Trollinger: 

The purpose of this letter is to follow up on the technical assistance (TA) visit conducted by the 

U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 

with the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) on April 10–11, 2019. The goal of the visit 

was for OSEP to obtain information from ADE regarding the State’s implementation of 

requirements related to early childhood transition to preschool services under the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the State’s monitoring of preschool programs under 

Section 619 of IDEA, and to verify the status of corrective actions required of ADE to resolve 

prior findings of fiscal noncompliance.1 This letter addresses only ADE’s implementation of 

requirements related to IDEA Section 619 and early childhood transition to preschool services 

only, as OSEP will address ADE’s correction of the fiscal noncompliance under separate cover.

In the week prior to the TA visit with ADE, OSEP conducted a differentiated monitoring and 

support (DMS) on-site visit with the Arizona Early Intervention Program (AzEIP), the lead 

agency responsible for implementing the IDEA Part C early intervention program in Arizona. 

OSEP’s DMS visit with AzEIP focused primarily on early childhood transition from IDEA Part 

1 Arizona’s IDEA Part B DMS report, dated July 3, 2018, can be found at 

https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/dmsrpts/index.html#b-az. During the April 10, 2019 technical assistance visit, 

OSEP specifically addressed several findings of fiscal noncompliance originally identified in OSEP’s May 5, 2016, fiscal 

monitoring letter, and for which ADE had not yet demonstrated correction. Since that visit, ADE demonstrated correction of 

several of those findings. ADE has submitted documents to OSEP to resolve two remaining corrective actions, as required by 

the July 3, 2018 DMS report. Those documents are currently under review by OSEP, and OSEP will respond to that 

submission under separate cover. One corrective action still needs to be completed by ADE prior to a closeout letter being 

issued. 
Page 2 — Honorable Alissa Trollinger

C to IDEA Part B preschool programs.

2 During the DMS visit, in an effort to obtain complete 

information about the State’s comprehensive system of early intervention services and early 

childhood transition for infants and toddlers with disabilities, OSEP met with representatives 

from ADE’s Office of Exceptional Student Services (ESS), and staff from the Section 619 office, 

which is a part of the Early Childhood Education (ECE) unit of ADE, to discuss the State’s 

policies and procedures to ensure a smooth and effective transition to IDEA Part B preschool 

programs for children participating in IDEA Part C early intervention programs and found to be 

potentially eligible for IDEA Part B services, as required by IDEA Section 612(a)(9) and 34 

C.F.R. § 300.124. 

The enclosure describes the: 1) background; 2) requirements related to transition from IDEA Part 

C early intervention programs to IDEA Part B preschool programs; 3) the State educational 

agency’s obligation to monitor preschool programs under IDEA Part B; and 4) OSEP’s 

conclusions including Next Steps and Required Actions. It also provides the specific details 

pertaining to each determined finding of noncompliance, along with the respective citation(s); 

and the corrective actions required to address the identified findings of noncompliance. 

We appreciate your efforts to improve results for infants and toddlers with disabilities. If you 

have any questions, please contact Kathleen Heck, your OSEP State Lead, at 202-245-6465. 

Sincerely,

 

 

Laurie VanderPloeg

Director

Office of Special Education Programs 

Enclosure

2 Arizona’s IDEA Part C DMS report, dated January 13, 2020, can be found at 

https://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/dmsrpts/index.html#c-az.
ENCLOSURE

Background

During the on-site technical assistance (TA) visit, Arizona Department of Education (ADE) staff 

clarified the organizational structure and role of ADE in the State’s comprehensive system of 

early intervention services and early childhood transition for infants and toddlers with 

disabilities. ADE staff reported that both Exceptional Student Services (ESS) and Early 

Childhood Education (ECE) fall under ADE, but ESS is housed within the Division of Highly 

Effective Schools, and the ECE unit is under the Division of High Academic Standards. ADE 

staff explained that the monitoring, TA and training activities related to Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B Section 619 fall under ECE’s scope of work. 

Furthermore, ADE staff reported that although ESS is the ADE unit responsible for ensuring that 

all public educational agencies (PEAs)3in the State meet the program requirements under IDEA 

Part B, ESS is minimally involved in how ECE carries out its duties related to monitoring, 

technical assistance, and training activities under IDEA Section 619. ADE staff indicated that 

this organizational structure has created challenges and has been a barrier to ESS’s ability to 

provide effective oversight of the IDEA Part B Section 619 programs.

OSEP’s further discussion with ADE focused on the State’s implementation of requirements 

governing transition from IDEA Part C to IDEA Part B programs and the State educational 

agency’s (SEA) obligation to monitor its preschool programs under IDEA Part B.

Transition from IDEA Part C Early Intervention Programs to IDEA Part B Preschool 

Programs

Under IDEA Section 612(a)(9) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.124, States are required to have in effect 

policies and procedures to ensure that children participating in early intervention programs under 

IDEA Part C, and who will participate in preschool programs under IDEA Part B, experience a 

smooth and effective transition to those preschool programs in a manner consistent with IDEA 

Section 637(a)(9). By the child’s third birthday, the State must ensure that an individualized 

education program or, if consistent with IDEA Sections 614(d)(2)(B) and 636(d), an 

individualized family service plan, has been developed and is being implemented for the child. 

When OSEP requested information regarding the policies and procedures ADE has in effect to 

ensure a smooth and effective transition from early intervention programs under IDEA Part C to 

preschool programs under IDEA Part B, the only policy or procedure ADE provided was a 

document titled, Policies and Procedures for ADE’s Early Childhood Unit 619: C to B 

Transition. That document refers to the State’s processes related to the collection and reporting 

3 Arizona uses the term “public educational agencies” (PEAs) to refer to their local educational agencies (LEAs), as defined in 34 

C.F.R. § 300.28.
OSEP DMS REPORT ARIZONA| 2020 PAGE 4

of early childhood transition data for IDEA Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance 

Report (SPP/APR) Indicator 12,4as well as related monitoring and TA activities, including 

correction of noncompliance related to Indicator 12. However, the document does not address 

other applicable early childhood transition requirements, such as policies and procedures related 

to participation in transition conferences, as required under IDEA section 612(a)(9) and 34 

C.F.R. § 300.124(c), initial individualized education program (IEP) Team meetings, as required 

under IDEA section 614(d)(1)(D) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.321(f) and 300.323(c), and 

implementation of IEPs consistent with IDEA sections 612(a)(1)(A) and (a)(9) and 614(d)(2)(B) 

and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.101(b), 300.124(b), and 300.323(b). The State indicated that, in addition to 

the SEA policies and procedures it provided (i.e., the aforementioned document), each PEA has 

its own policies and procedures related to IDEA Part B Section 619 that are used to guide early 

childhood transition at the local level5. 

The SEA’s Obligation to Monitor Preschool Programs Under IDEA Part B

Under IDEA Sections 612(a)(11) and 616, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E),6in order to 

effectively monitor the implementation of Part B of the IDEA, the State must have policies and 

procedures that are reasonably designed to ensure that the State can meet: 

1. Its general supervisory responsibility as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.149; 

2. Its monitoring responsibilities in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 through 300.602; and 

3. Its responsibility to annually report on performance of the State and of each local 

educational agency, as provided in 34 C.F.R. § 300.602(b)(1)(i)(A) and (b)(2). 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(1), the State must monitor the implementation of IDEA Part B and 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(a)(4) must report annually on the performance of the State and each 

LEA on the targets in the State’s Performance Plan. As a part of its monitoring responsibilities 

under these provisions, the State must use quantifiable and qualitative indicators in the priority 

areas identified in 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(d) and the SPP/APR indicators established by the 

Secretary, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(c). Section 616(a)(3) of IDEA requires the 

Secretary to establish indicators as needed to adequately measure performance in the priority 

areas specified in section 616(a)(3), and SPP/APR Indicator 12 is a longstanding indicator 

established by the Secretary as one of the measures that assess whether a State is meeting 

4

IDEA Part B SPP/APR Indicator 12 measures the percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible 

for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays.

5 OSEP did not require ADE to submit PEA-level documents as part of this TA activity. Therefore, OSEP is unable to determine 

whether PEA’s policies and procedures are consistent with requirements related to transition from IDEA Part C to IDEA Part 

C preschool programs, consistent with IDEA Section 612(a)(9) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.124.

6 Under 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E), a State that makes subgrants to LEAs under a Department-administered program must 

submit an application containing assurances that the State will monitor agencies responsible for carrying out the program, 

enforce any obligations imposed on those agencies under law, and correct deficiencies in program operations identified 

through monitoring or evaluation.
OSEP DMS REPORT ARIZONA| 2020 PAGE 5

program requirements, including effective monitoring and a system of transition services as 

defined in section 637(a)(9). The State must also collect valid and reliable information as needed 

to report annually to the Secretary on the SPP/APR indicators, as required under Section 

616(b)(2)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.601(b). However, a State’s monitoring responsibilities are not 

limited to only monitoring its LEAs’ compliance with SPP/APR indicators, but also include 

monitoring its LEAs’ compliance with the requirements of IDEA Part B that underlie the 

indicators, in order to ensure that the SEA can effectively carry out its general supervision 

responsibility under IDEA Part B, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.149(a). 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(b), the State’s monitoring activities must primarily focus on: 

1. Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; 

and 

2. Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the IDEA, 

with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to 

improving educational results for children with disabilities. 

In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(d), the State also must 

ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with IDEA Part B requirements by LEAs, the 

noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after the 

State’s identification of the noncompliance, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e).

Further, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.149(b), the State must have in effect policies and procedures to 

ensure that it complies with the monitoring and enforcement requirements in 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.600 through 300.602 and §§ 300.606 through 300.608.

OSEP requested information, including policies and procedures, regarding how ADE fulfills its 

general supervision responsibility and ensures that all educational programs for children with 

disabilities administered in the State meet IDEA Part B Section 619 requirements. In addition, 

OSEP requested to review copies of ADE’s monitoring protocols, monitoring reports, letters of 

finding, and corrective actions, or other evidence that would demonstrate that ADE has exercised 

oversight of its PEAs, including identifying noncompliance and ensuring timely correction of the 

noncompliance, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E), 

OSEP’s Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Identification and Correction of Noncompliance 

and Reporting on Correction in the SPP/APR, dated September 3, 2008, and OSEP 

Memorandum 09-02 (OSEP Memo 09-02), issued October 17, 2008. 

Neither ESS nor ECE staff were able to provide any documentation to demonstrate that the State 

is exercising oversight over its PEAs to ensure that they meet the program requirements under 

IDEA Section 619. Specifically, the State was unable to provide monitoring protocols, 

monitoring reports, letters of finding, or corrective actions related to IDEA section 619 

requirements, as requested by OSEP. In discussions with the State during and following the visit,
OSEP DMS REPORT ARIZONA| 2020 PAGE 6

ESS staff acknowledged that the State has no comprehensive monitoring system in place to 

ensure PEAs’ compliance with the requirements of IDEA Section 619 and, as a result, 

implementation of IDEA section 619 was inconsistent across the PEAs in the State. Staff also 

reported there were potential issues related to the collection and reporting of data for IDEA Part 

B SPP/APR Indicator 12 because there is no mechanism in place to ensure that PEAs are 

reporting valid and reliable data for the IDEA Section 619 programs. 

OSEP Conclusions

Based on interviews with ADE staff and the review of documents, OSEP concludes that the State 

is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities related to transition from 

IDEA Part C early intervention programs to IDEA Part B preschool programs, because the State 

does not have sufficient policies and procedures in place to ensure that children with disabilities 

participating in early intervention programs under IDEA Part C and who will participate in 

preschool programs under IDEA Part B experience a smooth and effective transition to those 

preschool programs in a manner consistent with IDEA Section 637(a)(9), as required by IDEA 

Sections 612(a)(9) and (11) and 616(a), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 

300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E).

Additionally, based on interviews with ADE staff and the review of documents, OSEP concludes 

that the State is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities related to 

IDEA Section 619, because the State does not have sufficient policies and procedures for PEAs 

to follow in implementing the requirements of IDEA Section 619, as required by IDEA Sections 

612(a)(11) and 616(a), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 

1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E).

OSEP notes that, although for the purpose of this on-site visit, OSEP did not collect additional 

information regarding data validity, the information that the State provided regarding its Section 

619 program raises concerns about the validity and reliability of the State’s SPP/APR Indicator 

12 data. Due to gaps and inconsistencies in the State’s monitoring practices and lack of 

oversight, the State appears to have no mechanism in place to ensure that it is collecting valid 

and reliable data related to its Section 619 programs. A key part of a State’s monitoring and 

general supervisory responsibilities under IDEA is the collection and submission of valid and 

reliable data, as required under IDEA section 616(b) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.601(b). As the SEA, 

ADE is responsible for the monitoring and general supervision of its Section 619 programs, and 

must have a system in place to ensure those programs are complying with IDEA Part B 

requirements, including the submission of valid and reliable data related to the Section 619 

programs.

OSEP acknowledges the work that the State has done since the visit, including the changes it has 

made to its organizational structure to ensure that it is meeting the requirements of IDEA. As of 

July 1, 2020, the Section 619 office is no longer a part of the ECE unit, but now falls under the 
OSEP DMS REPORT ARIZONA| 2020 PAGE 7

authority of ESS. The State reported that this change is in response to the feedback OSEP has 

provided over the past year and will enable ESS leadership to implement changes to address 

issues related to general supervision and monitoring, TA, and training activities under IDEA. 

The State also reported that it is working on revising its policies and procedures accordingly to 

ensure comprehensive fulfillment of statutory and regulatory requirements to ensure a smooth 

and effective transition to IDEA Part B preschool programs for children participating in IDEA 

Part C early intervention programs and found eligible for IDEA Part B services. 

Required Actions/Next Steps

A. Within 90 days from the receipt of this letter, ADE must submit a written plan to OSEP that 

includes a timeline, as well as steps it will take, to:

1. Develop and adopt final written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed: 

a. To ensure a smooth and effective transition to IDEA Part B preschool 

programs for children with disabilities who are participating in IDEA Part C 

early intervention programs and found eligible for IDEA Part B services, in a 

manner consistent with IDEA Section 637(a)(9), as required by IDEA Section 

612(a)(9) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.124; and

b. To ensure the State monitors PEAs’ implementation of all of the requirements 

related to transition from IDEA Part C early intervention programs to IDEA 

Part B preschool programs, including identifying noncompliance and ensuring 

timely correction of any identified noncompliance in accordance with the 

requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and OSEP Memo 09-027, as required 

by IDEA Sections 612(a)(11) and 616(a), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 

through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E); 

2. Develop and adopt final written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed:

a. To ensure PEAs carry out the requirements of IDEA Section 619 consistent 

with IDEA and its implementing regulations, including policies and 

procedures related to transition conferences as required in IDEA section 

612(a)(9) and § 34 C.F.R. 300.124(c), initial IEP Team meetings as required 

in IDEA section 614(d)(1)(D) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.321(f) and 300.323(c), 

and implementation of IEPs as required in IDEA sections 612(a)(1)(A) and 

(a)(9) and 614(d)(2)(B) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.101(b), 300.124(b), and 

300.323(b); and 

7 Consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02, the policies and procedures must ensure the State will verify that previously identified 

noncompliance in a PEA has been corrected by verifying that the PEA: (1) has corrected noncompliance for each child, unless 

the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the PEA; and (2) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements 

(i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site 

monitoring or a State data system.
OSEP DMS REPORT ARIZONA| 2020 PAGE 8 

b. To ensure the State monitors PEAs’ implementation of IDEA Section 619, 

including identifying noncompliance and ensuring timely correction of any 

identified noncompliance in accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.600(e) and OSEP Memo 09-028

, as required by IDEA Sections 

612(a)(11) and 616(a), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 300.602, 

and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E); and

3. Implement the final policies and procedures described in Required Actions A.1 and 

A.2 above, including: 

a. Ensuring that educators who provide services in IDEA Section 619 programs 

are trained and aware of their responsibilities under the State’s policies and 

procedures, consistent with the transition requirements in IDEA Sections 

612(a)(9) and 637(a)(9), and 34 C.F.R. § 300.124, and IDEA Section 619 

requirements; and 

b. Notifying all PEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other interested parties that 

the State has developed and adopted written policies and procedures 

consistent with the required actions above. 

B. Within 120 days from the receipt of this letter, ADE must provide OSEP: 

1. The final written policies and procedures related to transition from IDEA Part C early 

intervention programs to IDEA Part B preschool programs, as detailed in Required 

Action A.1 above; 

2. The final written policies and procedures related to implementation of IDEA Section 619, 

as detailed in Required Action A.2 above; 

3. Documentation that demonstrates that the State is implementing the new policies and 

procedures; and

4. Evidence that the State has disseminated the new policies and procedures to PEAs in the 

State, and that educators who provide services in IDEA Section 619 programs in Arizona 

are trained and aware of their responsibilities under those policies and procedures, 

consistent with IDEA requirements.

C. By April 1, 2021, the State is required to provide evidence (e.g., monitoring protocols 

and reports) that it is exercising its responsibility to monitor PEAs’ implementation of 

requirements related to transition from IDEA Part C early intervention programs to IDEA 

Part B preschool programs and requirements related to IDEA 619, including identifying 

noncompliance and ensuring timely correction of any identified noncompliance in 

accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and OSEP Memo 09-02.

8

 See footnote 5.