WPC 2m ZB.Acrobat PDFWriter 3.0x  @7X@a11Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers8@   a21Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersA@` `  ` ` ` a31Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersJ@  ` `  2La41Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersS@  a51Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers\  @hh# hhh a61Right-Aligned Paragraph Numberse  @( hh# a71Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersn @- ( 2m  < a81Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbersw@pp2 -ppp a1TechnicalTechnical Document Style 4!     a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style *    a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style '   2  3  = a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style &   a5TechnicalTechnical Document Style &  . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style&  . 2[  y 3  a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style&   . a1DocumentDocument StyleF!" *  ׃  a2DocumentDocument Style*# $   a3DocumentDocument Style0% &    28q e ecpa4DocumentDocument Style'( . a5DocumentDocument Style )* a6DocumentDocument Style +, a7DocumentDocument Style-.` ` ` 2pj`a8DocumentDocument Style/0` ` ` X0Í ÍX0Í ÍInserts2Redline12[ ]Insert 1Insert Information (CGTimes Bold,It.12pt)(34'#Xx*0 x7X#[]#Xx*0 x7X#2VSubheadingSubheading.5 6  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers<78@    HeadingChapter Heading39 : *  ׃  PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper;<   , X  y*dddyy*dddy HH1 HH2 HH3 HH4 HH5 HH6 HH7 HH8 HH9 H10 H11 H12 H13 H14 H15 H16 H17 H18 H19 H20 H21 H22 H23 H24 H25 H26 H27 H28   Ӌ2* !n0 Tech InitInitialize Technical Style=> 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 TechnicalDoc InitInitialize Document Style ?@    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentҲBibliogrphyBibliography!AB x  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXd  @@<  9`("Courier 10cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXd  @@<  9`("Courier 10cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiX8<  @,@<  9`("Courier 10cpi,x  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@ 7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @ 7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@ 7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @ 7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@ 7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpiH|@7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpiH|@7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXH|@7@3|a`$2Line Printer 16.67cpix  @7X@<  9`("Courier 10cpiXXx*0 x7X**0XXx*0 x7X**0X2**3|GVhhd UUUUUUUUUUUUU ,,,888EEEQQQaaaqqq 'Vhh,,<<;;::99887777665554443?333222211110?000/?///. /. ...----,-,,,,+?,+  ++  +*  +*  ** *) *) ))? )) )(? ??(((( ('? ??''? '' ''&&&&?&& && ?%% %%?  %% %% ?$$ $$ $$? $$? ?##? ##? ? ?## ?? ?## ?? ???"" ???"" ??"" ? "" ??!" !! !! !!  ! ? π?     ?   ?     ??????  ? ??  ??? ??? ???   ? ?? ?????? ? ? ????  ? ?  `?  ?x` | ?> ?? ????? ???????????? ???????? ? ??? ? ??? ? ?À   ?   ? ?   ??? ? ? ? ? ?? ?    ???   ? ? ????? ???????? ??? ? ?? ?  ?  ??   ?   ???  ?  ?    ?    ?    ??  ?    p??  >  ?x  ? |  ???>  ???  ???@  ?  ??   ??      ?         ?       ??? p?    ?  ?    ??     ??  ?? ?G #???? ???? ?? ? ? ?    ???  ??  ? ?? ? ?p ???   ?? |0 ?        ?    ~   ?~ ?  ??~?   ? ??~?   ?? ǀ?? ?  ? ??? ?   ??<?   ? "|?? ?    x? ?    ?ǀ    ??   ? ?? ?  ? > ???   ?? 0|?  ? `>  ?  C>`  ? C `?   'C?`?   Cg!??  ?? AG??   >??   #?3?   '??3?   ? 3?  ?  ?  ?  ??  ?? ?0??    ?>`?   ??C   ??K?Ɔ?   ??Cp?   ??0 ?  ?? ? ?  ? g?  ?? ''6 `?  ? '?'6   ? '??'n??   ? (?m??   ??? !~? π  ??? ?O    ?        ǀ       π  ? ?    ?      ? ?? ?     sa? ?    (g?@???    ?)    ?s)      ?? ?   ? ?  À??   ?  %1<???     %c>#    %6g~  %n   ??%3n7 > ? ??ǃ%?g?|g1?   ??3g3   % 3  0 ?w9q3 ?  nsa#À #  l}#   π|#? ?#h???@c?????G???g ??~??~?|???2n?| ?? ?8&|??y p܀ /x????v `~< /?  |8y?߀  ه xy   &p ?? G0?;&@|?c ? f?& ??  &g?  ??#g??͑'O??'@O ???π!OǏ???  '7`π'3x? πah?? π'`l?8?π? ??'`(񟌿pπ? ;  oπ 6 ?c?π   ??1ǀ?ߟ0 ??81????ߟ` ?q???۟x  ??ۿp|| ????`<| 9>?π ?x<< ?B?? B'?? `?5???`y?5/?@? @3?5 ?@??`@# 3??#?`|#@?`?x" ??? ?〆 ? ??0|?O0 ?x|px?x? ?π8~q ~w>? ?l y 8< ǀ???? s 0|? o0? ?0 ?π p??<0? ???܃??{ ?O ? ??pÀ8> _  ?`0À!>`_? ? a!぀!>b ? '@Ca　   A ? ?A?L??  À??A? ? ?8DŽA? y ?|x?A1?? q?  >?? ?x?#pA?#?  ? ?y?08`A??   ?1x`? ?< `?р? ??<H? `? ?` ???? `??? ?Ȁd? ?8DG?  0D?? 0g?D?? `cG?@?π? `g??@??߀?  @3?@>   !?@><?  8?}/<?>? ?|@xπ?'< ~ ?? <@?'=#  ?OO s'A9π ? 'π'A8 ?~ ?$?'A8?  ???8%8 ??%4`0?D??{ 0??  ?' 0 ??g 0 ??8?p  ?paBp ? ??? ?Bp  ?ǀp?  ?矀`  ??` =??? ? =?7ǀ ?? =C c?< `q 3ǀ>`sa?3? ~0=x?C83??  88ǀ8 c3?? ?8  3 ????? 8@l `?3? ? ?@&?G?s?  ?80 }0 yg?`s  ?0q #yg?   q `g? ??  ?<? ????` `?#o<? ??'O<1p > ??p !{O>8p`0<  |p !y>8@ x8?!~8 ?<88  ?3#> <p86 ? ~ ?|}`0???? ? $a?|>}@18 ?  ?p?||=@! ???2x< ????~<'~ ??? ?`0>?? ???? !! `  "#???87 @??~p70? ?0887`????0 7 ? ~??p' ??pʄ ?? ??pʅ0` ? ???x<8x '8 ??x 8` &~?р?| :?~?? >`????? >0p???? ~À ?????~1  ?????? 0v# ?    <   ǀ? @~ ?  À? 0@0? ?  ?  ?? `?x 0@?  ??? ? ` ?  ? ~ À?? ' ??`>> @? g ??> ?@? ߀ ?? <>? 3?π  x? ~ ñ??   8~ ǁ , `@, {8?0? ;"`8@?< ?p8?? ???x   ? `? `??  ??p? 0 ?>0? ? 0  ?ǀ 08 |? ? 0  ` q ?ǀ @`<`@??ǀ @`` ?|???ǀ@<@?   ????ǀx@@xq?????ǀ @>? ????ǀ@1@? ? ????ǀa?`῀?πp p?`|??| ?x  @s'vA?? c?x  @F?@π???! 1?P 8 @? ?π?? ??` @0?~π?? 8? @ߟ??<π??? ?30ߟO? ?@f 0 ?? y?   C? ? <` ?o1  `@ 1g@&c; w`  |#?Lǀ g@ ?~ @gɀ ~?, p@ "`}?0A &? 8? ?n?8d?? aO ?8?8Hq aH0  d?A?? C@ @@ a s?`6`@? 1c? 6`@3? | Ѓ@?`3? ?π #|@? 8??`?y  ?p?|  `|?`9 ?p? 8x@?8 ߘ?` { ?|`p<|@ƒÀ'8` 3  ?x p?<|@ 0`w ?? ?À <<?B   ?)~ ?ǀ~? C!  C@!O  @ C OA?@ /Oπ & O???? ?À ~?8"0? $ ~p7???@`? ' ~l3`??@?`@<Ã3O????@0 <ƃ#O??@  #??@?π ?p? $??@π 8x ? ?@pπ~ 80 ` ?@x x8 G ???@|À`?g  @~ǀ g@  0  w'?8@ ???@? '0@ ?<`?0ga@@g @??sO  @<?1? ? 0  > ?ȑ 8? ǀ?< <aO ??>>??gO?? ??/O? ??/O&?ǀ? $ ? O$?yv?ǀ?ǀ?ޕ x|;Y Oπ?  x ?  8b ?  0 0" @;? ??l  `̏;?À?? ?4 @`?π  ?? @1p7??|?@  @?? 0x ??? 0~>ǀ? ?  p??8?0 `x? ?006x? ?x|<0< ??`<  ?  q 08 ?y< ? ?<~ ?@`x?? @?>! 0~ ??w~ p π 1> ! p0π c߃  `  G ? @ǀ>? ?s@8 ?0??`?? ~x???? |'??? 0@g?? @`@` ?@ރ? ` ?? |@0?@?0  ~?`# 8 ?π|`?ǀ 8 π`|?À ?8C/?p?80??< `??À8 0`?8 ?8!  0p  0a?   x00>x? 8# 0a@`? @|< !`À ? G??~ǀ? #   G ? ? < xƃ <Aà  ? Ȁ <ă ?@?  |ă?v??@ # !|ă?0x??@?a\O~ |??@s| AL@~<` < ??@ xL>A@ 8?@>? l@<|0?@>?@>~`8?@~>   > ~8? @??   w c ~?π? @? p1 C |?cπ? @? ?̈́  |`qπ? @? ?00|@?x?? @?? 0<?|? @?x`x c0??? @?y`8 3 <0'? ?À 0p 0 0@`` ǀ  8@`A1  0?8``B? ? ?p 0@x? @a??? `0@`1?  w?` @`  ?@` `` ?O `8`p O> p ?` 8O? y0 '? 0`  ???  @p? `>+@@ >k@ π  ~kB p  ?B  ?`  ~80?  ~<?? ?o?? ?@ ?< ` 8`  x|`q q 87?3  t0'??c  ?L~ >??  ?x? ? 0>| ? ? 0`>| ~ ? `x@> @?? ? ?? ?p<p? ? H0?8??? ? @ 88 7y?  `? 0 ? a  @<  `?!   ` `@  ?`? ????  $8` ????   ?288???  ?f8???  ?@lpx ???  @@ ???  3`@?  ?@? ??߀  0 `? ? ?` !0px? ? `N 8?8A?? _`?0A?$?? ?_ hG@??8?? |G `h#` ? À?  ?<?x @>Ǐ?À  '` _{@@0@>  (G p{p`@~? ( ?O&g `{x0 @|@> ?N'o+|0`<;xO? ?'o?#~ 8(  /o?  @8 8H? ??|?  @8 `?>x ?`@0`???|0} 0?`@0?@@~` x 0?p@?@  ? y/ p?0@y8&??  0@@0`3? _H0 ` `3 ? Y? = `  s? ?>? =`` 0? ?>? }` 8?? ?A?`} 0??G? ?6?}?0???g? ?v>?0@?g?? ?Is8||g? ?C3aǀ8|p!  ?cx?# | ?  ?gq@ ~00 gNh~0@ǀ ?6g  ~0p ?π?? 2<  ǀ߆?>!  ?? (?@>1~p$A?@1?0#?A? 0!' ?&?0  '8 ?&?2?3 >'0&o2c ?0͟S"g ??p͟Q? ???͟DB ???͟a ???͟A 0  ??͟À3 π  ??xOݿ # π   O< a?   8? >x    !9??8р  >? !}??00?р1  ?? !|?x??0`?с9 ? ?? !?<??p?у}O ? ? ?Cp0ѓx   ?p0   ?p `  ?p  7? ? ?#q? ?  ?ǟ?'s6 ?  ǟ?x@<8' ?8  ??98x'?? ??pxO'?? G??? ? ?~ 8 ` ?'? '? '?0@??  '?g?  G?D s   `0O? ??  @?@  ??9 ?? 0<  ?y?? !8? p? ? ?8  ?   ? ? |? ???? b8?? `08? ?` 0p??  p p?   p``   x ` ?  0 x?`?  ?`y?  ??? p ? ~ ?  ? ?    ?   ? ?   ? ? ?? ?À  F0 ?? ?? ???|??????? `@????? ? > ?  ?? ? ? ? ?  ?  ? ?   ?  ??  ? ?? ?   ??8 ? ? 0? ???0 ? 0  0 ?0 0 ?0? ? 0? ? ?  x ??  ? @`     `   ~ ?  ` ?  ? ?    ?  ?  80??  08? ?? 08 ?? ?08  ?  ?08 ?  ?0 ? ???0  ? ?  ?0  ?  ?  ?0  0 ?  0  ?  0?? ?  0?   0 ? 0` ?  `0 ?   0 ??00   ?? ?0   ?0?  |?`  ~ ?`  ? <p ? ?|<?? ? ???0?? ??Ç8 ?0  ?? ? ??<? ? ?߆>??   ?  <0   8pp??    888`   À 80x  ? 000p  ? ` ǀ`0  > `@`8  <? @@   x >0?  ?pÀ?~ ? ?  ?@?x ? ?  ??p g  ?  ?0~    ???x~|     <?    ? 8?  ?  ? ?`??     ?Ȁ ?   `??   ? `??~    `0   ? @   ?     À ?  ?  ?  < ?   8p ?   ?<? ?    À? ?    08    0`  ??  #0    ?    ?   x `` ?  ??````   0> ?       ??  ?  ? ?   ??     ? ? |0  <0 ? ? ? ?? ? ? ? ??  ? ? ?A ?a ?  0@ ?    ?> ?x? ??? ~? <| ~     ? ??? ?À? ?  ?? ?? ?? ? ?? ?   ?  ?ǀ ??  ?  ?   ?  ? ? ?  ?? ?   ??    ?  ??  ?  ?   ?  ? ?         ? ?   ? π   ?  ?    ? ?   ?    ?%?# ~# ??#??" ? ????  ?? ????? ??? ??~?~?????? ? <  ?? ? ??~ ? ?>?             ? x? ? x?? x ?x ?~ ?? ?  ? ??&??&??&???&????? ?? ? ?? ???  ? ?? ???????      ?   ??      ? ! ? ! ? ! !0ǀ !! !"  !" ??!"? ?"" "#  "#  ?"#  ??## ? ? #$ ? #$ ? ?#$  $$  $%?  $% ?$%  %%?  %& ?? %& ? %& ? &' &'? &'&''%'($'(#'("()"() ?() )*)*)**+*+?*++,+,+,,-,-?-.-.-. ./? ./?/0/00001121223?2334344556?566778899::;;==@AKKKK Figure 1 KKKK Figure 1 y VV hhddC:\IMAGES\EDSEAL.TIFVVy UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION #d  @@# OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES#x  @7X@#у 5(MARCH 3, 1995 * Honorable Theodore S. Sergi Acting Commissioner of Education State Department of Education 165 Capitol Avenue Room 305, State Office Building Hartford, Connecticut 061061630 X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:CPBE"  "300.300; 300.8Special education and related services provided as required by the IEP@:p>PBX"e e "300.300; 300.532 Preplacement evaluations conducted in accordance with timelines established by State standard so that FAPE is not either delayed or denied9XPBX"  "300.345(d)Documented attempts to arrange mutually agreeable time and place PBX"' ' "300.346(a)(5)IEPs include appropriate content9Xp>PBX"e e "300.505(a)(1)Prior written notice provided to parents under 300.504 includes a full explanation of procedural safeguards per 300.505(a)(1)9XPBX"e e "300.534(b)Threeyear reevaluations conducted every three years of the anniversary date of the students last PPT meetingPBX"  "300.543(a) and (c)Written report of results of evaluation and of the conclusions of each member of the team9XPBX"4    4    "300.551, 300.552(a)(2) 300.552(b) Placement of student with disability is based upon the his or her IEP and that various alternative placements are available to the extent necessary to implement the student's IEPD>X XX  #x  @ 7X@# SECTION III(LEA)  III. SEA REVIEW AND APPROVAL   OF LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY APPLICATIONS   XX  Federal regulations establish the requirements that must be satisfied as a condition for distributing Part B funds to LEAs. 300.180300.240. CSDE is responsible for developing procedures that applicants must follow when submitting applications for Part B funds and for providing assistance in applying for funds. 76.770. CSDE is responsible for approving applications for Part B funds that satisfy applicable Federal statutes and regulations and disapproving applications that do not meet Federal requirements, including the approval and disapproval of significant amendments. 76.400(b) and (d), and 20 U.S.C. 1232e(b). Description of CSDE's process for the submission of Local Educational Agency (LEA) applications: An Application to the Connecticut State Department of Education for Fiscal Years 199395 Under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Act is submitted annually by school districts and other eligible public agencies to CSDE as required in the CSDE Instructions for Submitting an Application for FlowThrough Grant. Public agencies are instructed to submit an LEA application that includes assurance statements, documentation of maintenance of fiscal effort, a description of the services the agency will provide with Part B funds, and a description of services provided for children in public and private placements. Public agencies are also required to include assurance statements to address the following requirements: 300.220 (Child identification, location, and evaluation); 300.221 (Confidentiality of personally identifiable information); 300.224 (Personnel development); 300.227 (Participation in regular education programs); and 300.235 (Individualized education program implementation). Policies and procedures for the implementation of Part B are not a required part of this LEA application, but instead are submitted and reviewed as a part of the CSDE fiveyear monitoring cycle. Public agencies are only required to submit an assurance that their existing written policies and procedures, approved and on file with CSDE, continue to be in effect and have not been revised. If public agencies have initiated revisions in the policies and procedures on file at CSDE, the agencies are instructed to submit these revisions to CSDE with the annual submission of this application. FINDING 1 : CSDE did not obtain sufficient information on an annual basis to determine that applicants for subgrants fully met Part B requirements. OSEP determined that CSDE has not ensured that its review and approval procedures have been fully implemented and that Part B funds are distributed only to public agencies with compliant policies and procedures. CSDE must determine that the applicant for a subgrant meets the requirements of the Federal statutes and regulations that apply to the program as required at 76.400(b)(2). Although CSDE requires annual submissions of budgetary information and signed assurances, OSEP determined that CSDE's instructions regarding the submission of assurances and written policies and procedures did not ensure that only those applications with compliant written policies and procedures receive Part B funding. CSDE policy, as described above, requires the annual submission of any revisions the public agency has made to its policies and procedures that are not on file at CSDE. However, interviews with CSDE staff responsible for the review and approval of LEA applications, and administrators in the public agencies visited by OSEP demonstrated that, in actual practice, public agencies typically submit amended policies and procedures only at the time of the fiveyear compliance review or, when the changes are made in response to SEA corrective action requirements subsequent to a CSDE fiveyear compliance review. OSEP further determined that although CSDE staff inform administrators of amendments to Connecticut regulations, public agencies are not required to revise their existing policies or procedures to be consistent with those amendments to Connecticut regulations prior to the approval of the next LEA application. OSEP also found that amendments initiated by the public agencies have been implemented by the public agencies without the required prior review or approval by CSDE and have not been submitted to the CSDE until the next compliance review. FINDING 2 : CSDE approved public agency applications that did not meet all Part B or EDGAR LEA application requirements. CSDE's compliance procedures have not effectively ensured the correction of identified deficiencies in public agencies' policies and procedures, as noted in Section II beginning on page 3 of this Report, and in this section of the Report, prior to the approval of their application for Part B funds. OSEP analyzed LEA applications submitted by CSDE from the largest and the smallest agencies visited by OSEP to determine whether CSDE's review and approval procedures have been effective in ensuring that all applications are consistent with Federal LEA application requirements. As indicated below, OSEP determined that CSDE approved LEA applications that did not fully include all of the Federal requirements. Table IV provides an overview of the Federal requirements that were either not addressed or were inaccurately addressed in the LEA applications submitted by Agencies B and E and subsequently approved by CSDE.  ` `  &TABLE IV  ` ` p` @ t Requirements Not Included or Found Inconsistent With Part B  T pddx@p pddx@p T GG#H|@ 7@# t Key: X = ABSENT I = INCONSISTENT WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS ăee FEDERAL LEA APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS   '@ '@  Agency B E 300.221 Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information ' '  300.561(a)(1) Notice in native languagesDt>XtAX   300.561(a)(2) Notice of children on whom personally identifiable information maintainedtAX' '  300.561(a)(3) Notice includes policies and procedurestAX' '  300.561(a)(4) Notice of parent and child rights under Part 99pt>tAX' '  300.561(b) Publish notice before any major activitytAX' '  300.562(a) Inspect and review recordspt>tAIe e  300.564 If more than one child's name included, parents may access only the information pertaining to their child.tAX' '  300.567(a) Request to amend recordsDt>ItAX' '  300.571(c) Procedures when no consentDt>XtAX'' 300.222 Full Educational Opportunity Goal (FEOG): Information ' '  300.222(a) Goal of full educationDt>XtAX' '  300.222(b) Timetable for goalDt>XtAX'' 300.223 FEOG: Kind and Number: Information ' '  Facilities, services, and personnel for goalDt>XtAX'' 300.225 Priorities    Include priorities that meet the requirements of 300.320322Dt>XtAX'' 300.226 Parent Involvement in FEOG: Information ' '  Participation and consultationDt>X'' 300.227 LRE Procedures ' '  300.550(b)(2) Supplementary aides and services tAX' '  300.552(a)(1) Placements determined annually pt> X' '   300.552(a)(3) Placement close to home tAX' '  300.552(b) Placements available for IEPtAX' '  300.552(a) Placement in school student would normally attendpt>tAX' '  300.552(d) Consider harmful effects on the childDt>XtAX   300.227(b)(2) Describe number of children in each disability category served in each placementDt>XtAX'' 300.235 IEP Procedures    300.341(b)(1) IEP for child placed in private school by public agencypt>tAX' '  300.342(b)(1) IEP in effect before services providedtAX ' '  300.344(a)(4) Child at meeting tAX   300.344(b)(1) Member of the evaluation team present at IEP for child being evaluated for first timeXtAX   300.344(b)(2) Person knowledgeable about evaluation procedures usedDt>XtAXe e  300.344(c)(1)(ii) Transition services participants: representative of any other agency providing servicesDt>XtAX' '  300.345(c) Other methods/insure participationtAX   300.345(d)(1) Records of attempts to insure participation are maintained tAX   300.345(d)(3) Records of visits to obtain participation are maintainedtAX   300.346(b)(1) Transition services on IEP, including linkages with other agenciesXtAX   300.346(b)(2) IEP must include statement of services not needed in 300.18, with basis for determinationDt>XtAX   300.347(a) Initiate IEP meeting if participating agency fails to provide servicesDt>XtAX   300.347(b) Participating agency not relieved of responsibility X X' '  300.348(a)(1) IEP before private placement X   300.348(a)(1) Ensure representative of private school attends IEP meetingtAX   300.348(b)(1) Meetings to review and revise IEP conducted by private schoolDt>XtAX   300.348(b)(1) Parents and public agency representative are involved in IEP revisions and agree to changes XtAX   300.348(c) Public agency responsible for compliance in private school IEP X X' '  300.350 IEP accountability Dt>X X' '  300.237 Procedural Safeguards: Assurance  I ItAW  W   76.656 Private Schools:Information Dt>ItAI#x  @ 7X@# p`   Description of "I"s in Table  300.562(a) é Inspect and review records Public agencies must permit parents to inspect and review any educational records relating to their children. Agency E's procedures permit school personnel to request parents to waive those rights. 300.567(a) é Request to amend records Public agencies must permit parents who believe that information in the education records is inaccurate or misleading or violates the privacy or other rights of the child to request an amendment. Agency B omits the provision that parents may request an amendment if they believe educational records violate rights of the child, other than privacy rights. 300.237 Procedural safeguards: assurance CSDE requires the assurance that procedural safeguards, which comply with 300.500300.514, have been established and continue to be implemented. Section 300.515, which requires that parents be informed that courts may award reasonable attorney's fees, is omitted. 76.656 Private schools: information Agencies B and E did not describe the basis used to select students enrolled in private schools who would participate in Part B services, nor the manner and extent of consultation with representatives of private schools.  XX   SECTION IV(DUE) IV. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS   XX   CSDE is responsible for ensuring that public agencies provide written notice to parents that includes a full explanation of all of the procedural safeguards available to parents under 300.500300.515. See 300.505(a)(1). FINDING: Based on the facts set forth in Appendix B (Analysis of Parent Rights Notices in Local Agencies Visited by OSEP), OSEP finds that CSDE did not fully meet its responsibility under 300.501 to ensure that public agencies provided written notice to parents that included a full explanation of all of the procedural safeguards as required by 300.501 and 300.505(a)(1). OSEP's analysis of parent rights notices used by the public agencies visited by OSEP to inform parents of their procedural safeguards is incorporated in a table as Appendix B. The procedural safeguards that OSEP determined had not been addressed are indicated in the table as "absent." Procedural safeguards that OSEP determined to be incompletely or incorrectly addressed by public agencies visited, are indicated in the table as "Incomplete" or "Incorrect." An explanation is provided for each of the areas designated as "Incomplete" or "Incorrect." The name of the document used by each agency to inform parents of their rights is at the top of each chart column.  hh   hh  SECTION V(FAPE)  V. FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION Each public agency is responsible for ensuring that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is available to all children with disabilities within the jurisdiction of the public agency. FAPE means special education and related services that (a) are provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (b) meet the standards of the SEA, including the requirements of this part; (c) include preschool, elementary or secondary school education; and (d) are provided in conformity with an IEP that meets the requirements of 300.340300.350. 300.300, 300.8 and 300.17(a)(3). Each public agency is also responsible for taking steps to ensure that its children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to '3 3' 3' nondisabled children, including vocational education. See 300.305 and 300.17(b)(3). FINDING 1: Available Program Options OSEP determined that public agencies have not taken steps to ensure that children with disabilities have available to them the variety of educational programs and services available to nondisabled children, including vocational education (See 300.305). Technical vocational education in Connecticut is generally provided through Stateoperated regional vocational high schools, although comprehensive high schools offer some vocational and/or career training. OSEP found that the technical vocational education such as that provided through the Stateoperated regional schools was not an available program option for students with moderate or significant disabilities. OSEP confirmed through interviews that although some high school students could benefit from technical vocational education available only at the regional programs, this option was not available to certain students with disabilities. The Agency D administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education services and a school level administrator both told OSEP interviewers that some students with disabilities, based upon their individual needs, would benefit from the vocational instruction and human and material resources available only at the regional vocational technical high school. However, because of the entrance requirements, students with moderate and significant disabilities were effectively denied access to the vocational program and services. The special education administrator further stated that placement at the vocational technical high school was not considered as a placement option because it was assumed that students with moderate or significant disabilities would not qualify, thus significantly limiting the options for vocational education available to disabled students. In addition, OSEP was told by a State vocational official that programs at the regional vocational technical high schools were not currently available to most disabled students and that it would be a good program option for those students. He further stated that some students with moderate and significant disabilities who currently do not qualify based upon entrance requirements could be accommodated in the regional vocational high schools if additional fiscal resources were expended to generate supplementary material and staff support. Therefore, OSEP concludes that some students with disabilities do not have access to the type of vocational services available only at the regional vocational high schools.  FINDING 2: Extended school year (ESY) services Ì CSDE issued guidance regarding the provision of ESY services in May 1979 and in January 1992. This guidance however, was not implemented by four of the five public agencies visited by OSEP, in a manner that resulted in an individualized determination of a child's need for ESY, regardless of category of disability. A May 11, 1979 policy memorandum from the State special education director to local directors of special education requires State approval in each case where a public agency recommends the provision of programming which extends beyond the usual school year. State approval is based upon a determination by the PPT that the student's progress would be irreparably diminished and/or that serious regression and educational harm would result if a summer program were not provided. On January 13, 1992, a letter was issued from the Connecticut Office of Legal and Governmental Affairs (OLGA) to the special education director of Agency C, with copies to all State level consultants. In the letter, the criteria established in Armstrong v. Kline, a 1979 decision of the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals regarding ESY, were discussed. In addition, the OLGA letter provided information from other cases in which ESY was discussed, and specified that, while the Armstrong v. Kline criteria may be used, an LEA may not restrict its offering of ESY services to students with particular types of disabilities (emphasis added), and that the need for services must be an individualized determination. Despite this guidance, in four of the five agencies visited by OSEP, including Agency C, children with particular types of disabilities were categorically excluded from consideration for ESY services.  AGENCY A In an interview with the administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education programs in Agency A and the compliance coordinator, OSEP was told that ESY services could be determined by the PPT. The agency officials stated that: (1) Agency A used the standard contained in CSDE's 1979 policy memorandum; (2) only children with significant disabilities qualified for ESY services; and (3) 60 students in the system had received ESY services during the previous summer.  However, interviews conducted by OSEP monitors with schoollevel staff members in Agency A revealed a lack of awareness of any State or district policy regarding eligibility for ESY services. The administrator of a separate facility for students classified as seriously emotionally disturbed (SED) who was a regular member of the school's PPT, and the administrator of an integrated school for children in prekindergarten through the eighth grade, both stated that they were not aware of any school system policy regarding ESY. Two special education teachers at the separate facility and two special education teachers at the integrated school confirmed that they had never been involved in the writing of an IEP that included ESY services, and were not aware that these services could be considered as a part of IEP development if the student required these services in order to receive FAPE.  AGENCY C OSEP visited a separate facility for SED middle and high school students, and an integrated elementary school for students in prekindergarten through the fifth grade, which included children with physical disabilities, SED, specific learning disabilities (LD) and speech impairments. Although there was an awareness on the part of school administrators that ESY programs were to be offered to children with certain categories of disability, these administrators told OSEP interviewers that these services were not considered as a part of the IEP development process for students with the disability categories served in their respective schools. The administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education programs in Agency C reported that the determination of the need for ESY services was made by the PPT, using local criteria based upon the standards of Armstrong v. Kline. The administrator stated that 60 students in the categories of mental retardation, autism, and physical or multiple disabilities had received ESY in the district the previous summer. He stated that ESY programs in the district were evolving, beginning with programs for students with disabilities such as mental retardation. He acknowledged that ESY services were currently not available for SED students and that these services were being developed and would be available in the future. The administrator of the separate facility and the district's special education supervisor for programs for SED students, and one of the special education teachers, all of whom were participants in the facility's PPT meetings, confirmed that the determination of needed ESY services was made by the PPT, and that the criteria were included in the local policies and procedures. These individuals further stated that it was their understanding that ESY services were to be considered for students with significant disabilities such as moderate mental retardation and autism, and that these services were not available for consideration for the SED students served at that facility. A second special education teacher was unaware of the concept that students' goals and objectives could be extended through the summer if needed to provide the student with FAPE. The administrator of the integrated elementary school stated that only one student at his school had ever received ESY, and that was as a result of a parental request. The administrator further reported that he was unaware of district criteria for provision of ESY services. Two special education teachers at the integrated facility, one who taught a selfcontained LD class and the other a selfcontained SED class, indicated that they were not familiar with the concept of ESY and had never participated in a PPT meeting where ESY services were discussed or considered for any student, regardless of need.  AGENCY D OSEP visited a middle school for seventh and eighth grade students which included special education students in the categories of learning disabled (LD), trainable mentally retarded (TMR), and seriously emotionally disturbed (SED), as well as a separate program (housed in an elementary school) that served students with multiple disabilities. ESY was considered for all of the students in the separate program for significantly disabled students, as confirmed by OSEP interviews and record reviews. However, OSEP interviews with school staff and reviews of records confirmed that ESY was not considered in PPT meetings for students with disabilities in the integrated middle school. The special education administrator for Agency D told OSEP interviewers that the district policy provided that ESY services be considered for students in all disability areas. She stated that a number of ESY services, including related services, tutoring, speech services, and services to the hearing impaired had been provided during the previous summer. However, an administrator and two special education teachers of SED and TMR students at the middle school indicated that ESY had never been discussed at PPT meetings for their SED students. The special education teacher of TMR students stated that while summer camp and a Saturday Academy were available to all TMR students, neither of these services were discussed at the PPT meeting, nor were individualized goals and objectives to meet the specific needs of students, who were to participate in the summer program, incorporated into IEPs. Therefore, OSEP finds that the district policy was inconsistently implemented among the schools in Agency D. AGENCY E OSEP monitors visited a senior high school and a middle school in Agency E. Interviews with administrators and teachers indicated that ESY was not considered for or provided to children with mild or moderate disabilities. OSEP monitors determined through student record review and confirmed in a teacher interview that ESY services were provided to TMR students in a separate program located in the middle school through a summer work program. However, a review of student records for students categorized as LD, EMR, and SED in that same middle school, and an interview with the teacher of these students, confirmed that ESY services were never considered at her students' PPT meetings. The administrators of the middle school indicated that, while summer services were available for children with multiple disabilities and through summer work programs, the individual need for these services was not considered as part of the PPT process. Two special education resource teachers were interviewed by OSEP at the senior high school. These teachers taught students determined to have LD, SED, TMR, and physical disabilities, and reported that ESY services had not been considered as part of the PPT process. The building administrator told OSEP interviewers that summer services were only considered if an individual teacher had referred a student to a community agency for a specific summer program. The administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education in Agency E confirmed to OSEP interviewers that ESY services discussed at the PPT were only available for consideration for students with more pervasive disabilities. The administrator stated that there was no written district policy governing the provision of ESY services. FINDING 3: Initiation of provision of services CSDE did not fully meet its responsibility under 300.300 to ensure that public agencies did not deny or delay a child's right to FAPE by failing to provide initial evaluation and placement within a time frame established through State standard. Although Part B does not set forth a specific standard for conducting the initial evaluation, each State must establish and implement standards to ensure that the rights of each child with a disability are neither denied nor delayed because the responsible agency does not conduct an initial evaluation and provide initial placement within a reasonable period of time. In Section 1076d13 of the CSDE Regulations Concerning Children Requiring Special Education, public agencies are required to implement the major components of the IEP, inclusive of evaluation, as follows: (1) for indistrict placements, within 45 school days of the date a student is referred; and (2) for outofdistrict or private placements, within 60 school days from the date of referral. Timelines in both cases are exclusive of the time required to obtain parental consent. In the case of referrals made between school years, the effective date of the referral is the first school day of the next school year. LEA administrators in agencies A, B, and E provided documents to OSEP monitors that demonstrated delays beyond the State mandated timelines for initial evaluations and implementation of the major components of the initial IEP. Agencies A and B submitted student data for their respective agencies indicating the dates of referral and initial placement from the beginning of the 1992 school year to December of 1993. Agency E provided a letter of information. In Agency A, 469 children were referred for initial evaluation during the period. The initial placements of 78 of those children (17 percent of those referred) exceeded State timelines for a range of 30 to 250 school days. In agency B, 77 children were referred for initial evaluation during the period. For 13 of those children (17 percent of those referred) the initial placement exceeded State timelines for a range of 15 to 330 school days. OSEP monitors were notified in a letter from the administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education in agency E that he was unable to provide OSEP with the requested information because his system did not have the information available in a data base. He did state that since September 1992 there had been 964 new referrals for psychological testing, and added the following statement:  ` ` ` When I review the limited data I do have, it is obvious that [Agency E] is not meeting the fortyfive day timeline.  FINDING 4: Special education and related services provided as required for FAPE. CSDE did not meet its responsibility under 300.300 and 300.8 to ensure that public agencies provide all of the special education and related services to meet the needs of students with disabilities, as specified by their IEPs. OSEP interviewed administrators, teachers, and related services providers, and reviewed students' records and CSDE's regulations and found that some special education and/or related services were not provided because of administrative structures, inconsistently implemented policies and procedures, and/or reported staff shortages. AGENCY A OSEP reviewed IEPs, PPT minutes, and interviewed staff in a separate facility for students identified as SED. OSEP determined from this review that no individualized counseling services were considered at PPT meetings, included on the IEP, or provided to the students. The administrator of the facility and the social worker stated that, although the facility employed a fulltime social worker, the social worker's time was taken up with crisis intervention, group counseling in the classroom, and duties with respect to PPT meetings. The students at the facility were described by all of the school staff members interviewed by OSEP as having problems with attitude, adjustment, and appropriate school behavior. School staff further stated that many needed individual counseling services. However, the administrator and social worker indicated that an individualized determination of the need for counseling services for the SED students was not considered by the PPT because the school lacked sufficient personnel to provide these services. Instead, IEPs were written based on availability of services. The special education administrator for agency A and the compliance coordinator, interviewed together, explained that social work services were not provided based on individual needs as developed by the PPT, but rather, were provided only in the form of group counseling by classrooms, with a focus on district initiatives such as conflict resolution, as well as on crisis intervention.  AGENCY E  The administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education and related services in Agency E and the staff at the high school and middle school visited by OSEP reported that the provision of special education services was affected by shortages of social workers, psychologists, occupational therapists, bilingual speech/language pathologists and bilingual special education teachers. The administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education and related services in Agency E told OSEP interviewers that positions for school psychologists in the system had been reduced over the past few years, which added to the problem of providing students with needed related services. This administrator also stated that shortages of occupational therapists had become more acute since the last State monitoring and that CSDE was unaware of the extent of the current shortages. He stated that he was currently developing a request to CSDE for assistance in obtaining qualified personnel. The social worker at the high school reported that the amount of social work services specified on the IEP could be changed or discontinued by the social worker, based on her judgement, without reconvening the PPT. She stated that availability of her services was one basis for determining whether a student would receive direct or consultative services, and for determining the amount and frequency of service provided. She also stated that if there was a crisis that required her intervention, then a student's scheduled counseling session, as specified in the student's IEP, would not be provided. The principal confirmed that much of the social worker's time was crisis driven, and that limited social work staff had to prioritize the provision of services, given the nature of the frequent crises. As an example of the kinds of crises that arise, the principal stated that three students from the school had been shot since the beginning of the school year. The social worker at the middle school stated that the amount and kind of social work service determined at the PPT was based on the numbers of students requiring service and the availability of services rather than on individual student needs. She further stated that the amount of service that was determined by the PPT and specified on the IEP was often not provided because of crisis situations. She stated that the majority of students whose IEPs require weekly service are actually seen every two to three weeks. She further stated that 15 to 20 students were still waiting for the initiation of services (the interview took place in mid December). She summarized the situation as follows: "The amount of workers and the student need don't add up." The principal confirmed that there was a waiting list for social work services because of an insufficient number of staff members. The principal stated that services were easy to assign, but difficult to obtain, and that the district had been notified of the problem. P  VI. PROTECTION IN EVALUATION PROCEDURES ă  A. CSDE is required to ensure that each public agency establishes and implements evaluation procedures that meet the requirements of 300.530300.534. 300.530(a). Section 300.500(b) defines "evaluation" as procedures used in accordance with 300.530300.534 to determine whether a child has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs. CSDE and local public agencies are responsible for ensuring that each child with a disability is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. 300.532(f). CSDE and local public agencies are responsible for ensuring that a reevaluation of the child, based on procedures which meet the requirements under 300.532, is conducted every three years, or more frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or teacher requests an evaluation. 300.534(b). BACKGROUND OSEP interprets 300.534(b) (reevaluation) to require that the State and its respective public agencies must ensure that each student is evaluated in a manner that is consistent with 300.532 and that the evaluation produces accurate information sufficient to determine whether the student continues to have a disability and if so, the nature and extent of special education and related services the student requires. Evaluation procedures must be selectively used with individual children, and do not include basic tests administered to or procedures used with all children in a school, grade or class (300.500(b)).  FINDING 1: Content of Evaluation OSEP finds that CSDE did not fully meet its responsibility under 300.534(b) to ensure that an evaluation of the child, based on procedures that meet the requirements of 300.532, is conducted every three years, or more frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or teacher requests an evaluation. OSEP found CSDE's monitoring procedure ineffective in the identification of deficiencies regarding this requirement. As noted in Section II beginning on page 3 of this Report, CSDE monitors only to ensure the timeliness of the threeyear reevaluations. CSDE does not verify that content (e.g., which tests or other evaluation procedures, if any to employ) of the evaluation is consistent with Part B requirements, including the requirement of 300.532(f) that the child be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. The Self Review Folder Checklist is completed for each IEP and indicates whether the triennial was present or missing and, at item #18, the dates of last triennial evaluation. As noted in this section of the report and in Section II beginning on page 3 of this Report, CSDE has not effectively ensured that deficiencies are identified when public agencies have not met the triennial evaluation content requirements. Agency D Agency D's practice is to complete a form titled "Triennial Reevaluation Review Form" to document the decision by the PPT made relative to the content of the reevaluation. Three of four "Triennial Reevaluation Review Forms" reviewed by OSEP (four of the twelve records reviewed in Agency D were of students who had been in special education more than three years and therefore at some point required reevaluations) indicated that at the time of the reevaluation no assessment or evaluation procedures, beyond those previously administered to the student at the last evaluation (at least three years earlier) and already on file, were performed and that the students' programs continued to be appropriate. The administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education in Agency D stated that it was considered adequate procedure to respond "no" to the question regarding the need for a more thorough assessment (i.e., additional testing) on the "Triennial Reevaluation Review Forms." The teacher who participated in the PPT of the students whose records were reviewed by OSEP, a social worker who participated in the PPTs and the administrator responsible for supervising the provision of special education in Agency D stated that unless there is a change in the student's behavior the triennial reevaluation would not require that any assessment or evaluation procedures, beyond those previously administered to the student at the last evaluation (at least three years earlier), be performed and the student's program would remain appropriate. This is inconsistent with the requirement (300.534(b)) that the triennial reevaluation is based on procedures that meet the content requirements contained in 300.532, including 300.532(f) which specifies that the child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability.  FINDING 2: Reevaluations conducted every three years OSEP finds that CSDE did not fully meet its responsibility under 300.534 to ensure that an evaluation of the child, based on the procedures that meet the requirements of 300.532,  is conducted every three years , or more frequently if conditions warrant, or if the child's parent or teacher requests an evaluation. AGENCIES A,C,D and E : OSEP reviewed documentation submitted by local directors in the public agencies visited by OSEP to determine whether triennial evaluations were being conducted in a timely manner. These data included dates of the most current and previous triennial evaluations for students in grades 912. OSEP's findings and analysis are provided below and illustrate that Agencies A, C, D and E did not meet the triennial reevaluation timeline requirement. OVERDUE TRIENNIAL EVALUATIONS FOR STUDENTS IN GRADES 912  ddx$ ddx$ .  .  AGENCY# of Stu dents needing reevals16 Months Over due712 Months Over due12 Years Over due23 Years Overdue34 Years Over dueTotal Overdue.P P .A 295^ 5'1g/170?0 7.P P .C49^ 1'1g/170?0 3.P P .D 23 ^ 2'4g/070?0 6.              .E694 59 77  49 15 12 212 B. CSDE and local public agencies are responsible for ensuring the implementation of additional procedures for evaluating children with specific learning disabilities under 300.540300.543. Section 300.543(a) and (c) requires a written report of the results of the evaluation, including a certification in writing that the report reflects the conclusions of each team member.  FINDING: 1 OSEP finds that CSDE did not, consistently meet its responsibility under 300.543(a) and (c) to ensure that a written report of the results of the evaluation, including a certification in writing that the report reflects the conclusions of each team member, was developed for each child suspected of having a learning disability as demonstrated by the following. a. As noted in Section II beginning on page 3 of this Report, CSDE's monitoring procedures have not effectively identified deficiencies regarding this requirement. CSDE's compliance monitoring document limits its compliance verification to a review of its public agencies' policy and procedures ensuring the requirements of 300.543. CSDE monitoring staff informed OSEP that although a compliance standard is not available, public agencies are required to submit a copy of the format used to document the results of the LD evaluation. However, no onsite verification by CSDE occurred to confirm that public agencies were appropriately implementing the Federal requirements. b. In 12 of 21 cases in public agencies A, B, C, and E, either there was no written report or the written report did not contain all of the components specified at 300.543(c). 1) In eight cases there were no written reports (2 in Agency A; 2 in Agency B; and 4 in Agency C). 2) In three cases in Agency E the written report did not include proper certification by each team member as required by 300.543(c) which states that "if it does not reflect his or her conclusion, the team member must submit a separate statement presenting his or her conclusions." Each report contained a statement with the box checked indicating that: "This is to certify that the school PPT met on the above date and determined that student has a specific learning disability identified as..." The use of one checkoff box for all team members does not meet the requirement that each team member shall certify in writing whether the report reflects his or her conclusion.  3) In one case in Agency A the student observations were conducted by the child's teacher as confirmed by teacher interview. The regulation at 300.542(a) requires that an observation be conducted by a team member "other than the child's teacher." Interviews with the Agency B special education coordinator for secondary schools and with the teacher whose students' records were reviewed by OSEP confirmed that observations and written reports had not been included in PPT minutes or student records when LD eligibility was determined. The special education coordinator indicated that administrators only became aware during this school year of the necessity for additional LD evaluation procedures, including observations and written reports. SECTION VII* VII. FAPE IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT  Each public agency is responsible for ensuring that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is available to all children with disabilities within the jurisdiction of the public agency and, based upon students' IEPs that meet the requirements of 300.340300.350, the students are placed in the least restrictive environment to meet their individual needs. CSDE is required to ensure that public agencies establish and implement procedures that meet the requirements of 300.550300.553 and 300.305300.306. Sections 300.554, 300.555 and 300.556 set forth requirements that CSDE must meet. In addition, CSDE is required to ensure that each time a public agency proposes or refuses to initiate or change the educational placement of a child with a disability, the agency provides the parents with written notice that informs them of the proposed placement action, and includes an explanation of why the agency proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of any options the agency considered and the reasons why those options were rejected. 300.505(a)(2). Under Part B, public agencies must ensure that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) is made available to children with disabilities in mandated age ranges, and that the rights and protections guaranteed by Part B are extended to eligible children and their parents. Consistent with the FAPE requirement, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act provides that States receiving funding under Part B must ensure that children with disabilities are educated in regular classrooms with nondisabled children "to the maximum extent appropriate." OSEP interprets Part B's Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) requirement to prohibit a school from placing a child with disabilities outside of a regular classroom if educating the child in the regular classroom, with supplementary aids and support services, can be achieved satisfactorily. In determining whether a child with disabilities can be educated satisfactorily in a regular class with supplementary aids and services several factors must be considered, including: (1) whether reasonable efforts have been made to accommodate the child in the regular classroom; (2) the educational benefits available to the child in a regular class, with appropriate supplementary aids and services, as compared to the benefits provided in a special education class; and (3) the possible negative effects of the inclusion of a child with a disability on the education of that child and the other students in the class. If, after considering these factors it is determined that the child should be removed from the regular classroom and provided education in another setting, the agency still remains responsible to include the child in school programs with nondisabled children to the maximum extent appropriate. This includes taking intermediate steps wherever appropriate, such as placing the child in regular education for some academic classes and in special education for others, mainstreaming the child for nonacademic classes only, or providing interaction with nondisabled children during lunch and recess. OSEP recognizes that the appropriate mix will vary from child to child, and it may be hoped from year to year as the child develops. OSEP conducted onsite visits in seven public agencies. These visits included: (1) the review of student records; (2) interviews with administrators and teachers with knowledge of the public agencies' educational programs and placement policies and procedures; and (3) interviews with administrators and teachers whose responsibility included ensuring that students with disabilities have available and are provided the program options and services necessary to implement their IEPs. In addition, OSEP reviewed State policies and procedures and interviewed various State officials to determine guidance provided by CSDE to its public agencies regarding the LRE provisions. Public agencies are required, as part of the PPT process, to provide a written justification for each child's recommended educational placement (the format for the justification varies in each district). The prototype "Annual Justification for Placement" form provided to LEAs by CSDE includes a place to record the justification for placement. State and local officials informed OSEP that this form serves as the formal notice to parents of the educational placement for their child. It is through this notice that a justification for removal from the regular education classroom and/or environment is provided. As indicated in Section II beginning on page 3 of this Report, CSDE's monitoring procedures are sufficient to ensure the identification of deficiencies regarding the LRE requirements. However, also, as indicated in Section II, CSDE's procedures have not ensured that deficiencies identified in public agencies are corrected. Following are the specific findings of deficiency relative to CSDE's implementation of the LRE requirements. OSEP wants to stress that through the LRE provisions IDEA expresses a clear preference for educating children with disabilities with children who are nondisabled. Although CSDE has closed numerous separate facilities that exclusively served students with mental retardation, the findings of deficiency listed below relative to CSDE's implementation of the LRE requirements demonstrate that many deficiencies found during OSEP's last monitoring of CSDE still existX0ÍX0ÍX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: