Topics in General Supervision South Dakota LEA …Topics in General Supervision South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #1: Accountability and RDA Wednesday, October 9, 2019

Topics in General Supervision

South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #1: Accountability and RDA Wednesday, October 9, 2019 | 3:00-4:30 pm CT

Table of Contents

Agenda 2

Webinar PowerPoint 4

RDA Core Principles 93

South Dakota 2019 Part B Results Driven Accountability Matrix 94

2019 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA 96

Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement 100

Q&A on Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement 107

Topics in General Supervision

South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #1: Accountability and RDA Wednesday, October 9, 2019 | 3:00-4:30 pm CT

Purpose of the Webinar Series

The South Dakota Department of Education (SD DOE), Special Education Programs, is providing a series

of webinars for Local Education Agency (LEA) Special Education Directors with information on selected

components of general supervision.

Outcomes

By participating in this webinar, participants will:

Identify monitoring as a general supervision responsibility of the SEA.

Be familiar with the specific federal and State regulations on monitoring.

Understand how all components of general supervision are included in the monitoring of LEAs.

Become familiar with South Dakota’s accountability system.

Co-Facilitators

Wendy Trujillo, Assistant Director, South Dakota Department of Education

Melissa Flor, Program Specialist, South Dakota Department of Education

Mark Gabrylczyk, Program Specialist, Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE)

AGENDA

I. Getting Started! Wendy/Mark

Opening remarks

Briefly review the webinar series: components of general supervision

Future webinar topics and dates

Mentoring for LEA Directors

Agenda review for today’s topic

II. The Federal Perspective: Accountability Mark

SEA responsibility for a system of general supervision: Accountability

Integration of the components of general supervision

Data sources for general supervision accountability

The emergence of accountability (RDA)

OSEP’s vision for RDA

Central question: How do we merge monitoring for results and compliance into one

accountability system?

Q & A on federal information

III. The State Perspective Wendy

Introduction and roles of State team members

Purpose of the Accountability Review

Review of the Process

Overview Results Driven Accountability

IV. Q&A on the State Perspective Wendy

Questions for SD DOE staff on the accountability process

V. Summary and Next Steps Mark

Stay tuned for the October webinar – Child Count

Webinar evaluation via Survey Monkey

Thanks for Participating!

PLEASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J9ZXMP3



Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education

South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series

Webinar #1: Accountability and

RDA

• Identify the components of the generalsupervision system;

• Provide an overview of regulations relatedto selected general supervision topics toLEA Directors; and

• Provide an opportunity for Q&A on thespecific topics in general supervision.

Purpose of the Webinar Series

October 9th Accountability/RDANovember 14th Child Count

December 12th Dispute Resolution

January 9th SPP/APR

February 6th Budget/Fiscal

March 12th Data

Webinar Schedule

• Wendy Otheim-

Contact person for those interested in this

new opportunity offered through the Council of

Administrators for Special Education (CASE).

Mentors are available throughout South Dakota

Assistance for new special education directors with

questions they may have.

Contact info:

[email protected]

[email protected]

South Dakota Special Education Director Mentoring

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Participants will:

• Identify monitoring as a general supervision

responsibility of the SEA.

• Be familiar with the specific Federal and State

regulations on monitoring.

• Understand how all components of general

supervision are included in monitoring of LEAs.

• Become familiar with South Dakota’s monitoring

system under Results-Driven Accountability

(RDA).

Outcomes for Today

• Agenda

• PPT Handout

Federal Materials – Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

• RDA Core Values• Part B Indicators- Annual Performance Report• How the Department Made Determinations in 2019

– South Dakota RDA Matrix• 2019 Fact Sheet: Determination Letters on State Implementation• Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement, OSEP, 2006.

• Questions and Answers on Monitoring Technical Assistance and Enforcement, OSEP, 2009.

• RDA Charts from OSEP, 2014.

Materials and Resources

What is Results Driven Accountability (RDA)?

Interactive Poll

In

Interactive Poll

Big Picture!

IDEA Part B—Reauthorization 2004

• Sec. 611 AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

• Sec. 612 STATE ELIGIBILITY.• Sec. 613 LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.• Sec. 614 EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS,

INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.

• Sec. 615 PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.• Sec. 616 MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND

ENFORCEMENT.• Sec. 617 ADMINISTRATION.• Sec. 618 PROGRAM INFORMATION.• Sec. 619 PRESCHOOL GRANTS.

34 CFR § 300.149

SPP & State Goals with

Measurable Targets

FiscalManagement

Integrated Onsite & Offsite

Monitoring Activities

Effective Policies &

Procedures

Data on Processes &

Results

Improvement, Correction,

Incentives & Sanctions

Componentsof General

Supervision

Effective Dispute

Resolution

Targeted Technical

Assistance & Professional

Development

Accountability!!!

Section 616 of the 2004 Amendment says,

“The primary focus of Federal and State

monitoring activities:

A. Improving educational results and functional

outcomes for all children with disabilities; and

B. Ensuring that States meet those requirements…with a

particular emphasis on those requirements that are

most closely related to improving educational

results for children with disabilities.”

What It’s All About!

A System of General Supervision

All States have a responsibility, under IDEA, to have a system of special education general supervision that monitors the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by school districts (LEAs) and charter schools.

34 CFR § 300.149

• A State’s monitoring system must integrate

across all components of its general

supervision system.

• Multiple data sources and methods are

used to monitor every LEA.

• States determine what data will inform

their determination process, and have the

greatest impact on results.

Integration of Components

General Supervision Component Types of Data

SPP/APR Targets for Indicators (Compliance and Results)

Policies and Procedures Comprehensive Plans/Policies, Disproportionality

Fiscal Accountability Maintenance of Effort (MOE), Appropriate use of IDEA funds

Processes and Results Section 618 (Child Count), Discipline, LRE

Improvements, Incentives, Sanctions Continuing noncompliance

Dispute Resolution Complaints, mediations, due process hearings

Sources/Types Data

The Turning Point

“We have to expect the very best from our students – and tell the truth about student

performance so that we can give all students the supports and services they need. The

best way to do that is by focusing on results.”

Sec. of Education Arne DuncanRDA Press Release, March 2012

Why the Emergence of RDA?

The data on compliance

over recent years is strong.

The data on results does

not show the same trajectory.

• Performance of subgroups impacting

accountability status.

Why the Emergence of RDA?

2017 Reading State Snapshot ReportNation (public) ■ Grade 4 ■ Public Schools

2017 Reading State Snapshot ReportNation (public) ■ Grade 8 ■ Public Schools

Current States that Meets Requirements under RDA-2019

Arizona Massachusetts OhioConnecticut Minnesota PennsylvaniaFlorida Missouri South DakotaIndiana Montana VirginiaKansas North Dakota West VirginiaKentucky Nebraska WisconsinMaine New Jersey Wyoming

Changing Context

RDA represents a shift from

compliance-based monitoringto an accountability system

based on differentiated monitoring and support.

(Results Driven Accountability: Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement Decisions, OSEP Webinar, 2016)

Organizational Assessment of Risk Factors (OSEP-DMS)

Differentiated Monitoring and Support

Focus resources on those States/LEAs with

the greatest needs.

OSEP’s Vision For RDA

All components of an accountability system

will be aligned in a manner that best supports

States in improving

results for infants,

toddlers, children,

and youth with

disabilities and

their families.

OSEP’s Components of RDA

• State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) measures results and compliance.

• Determinations reflect State performance on results as well as compliance.

• Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance support improvement in all States, but especially low performing States.

• To help close the achievement gap for

students with disabilities;

• To move away from a one-size-fits-all,

compliance-based approach;

• To create a balanced system that looks at

how well students with disabilities are

being educated, in addition to continuing

efforts to protect their rights.

Priorities of RDA

Implications for States

Central question: How do we merge monitoring for

results and compliance into one system?

– Results is the driver for data

drill down; compliance is a

piece of that data.

– Compliance is a means to

an end—not the end itself.

SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMSSD DEPARTMENT OF

EDUCATION

COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov

SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF

Linda Turner

Director

Legislative Committees Rep.

Federal IDEA Application

Wendy Trujillo

Assistant Director

Dispute Resolution Coordinator

State Performance Plan

SD Advisory Panel for Children with Disabilities

Special Education Listserv


Vacant, Alternate Assessment Indicator 1& 3

Alternate Assessment

1% Waiver

Region 4 Program Representative

Jodi Berscheid, 619 Coordinator

Indicator 6, 7, 11, & 12

Battelle Developmental Inventory II

ECO Listserv

Region 5 & 6 Program Representative

Temporarily Region 4


Rebecca Cain, PD & Behavior Specialist Indicators 2 & 4

MTSS/PBIS

School Climate

Suspension/Expulsion

Dyslexia

ELL

Region 2 (Sioux Falls) Program Representative

Melissa Flor, Accountability Specialist Indicator 9 & 10 Disproportionality

Accountability

Results Driven Accountability



Beth Schiltz, Accommodation & HS Transition Specialist

Indicator 1, 13, & 14

Transition

Accommodations


Brandi Gerry, Implementation Specialist

SSIP (State Systemic Improvement Plan – Indicator 17)

SPDG (State Personnel Development Grant)



Vacant, Data Manager

Data

Child Count

Vacant, Secretary

MONTHLY SPED DIRECTOR CALLS

Occur the third Tuesday of every month @ 10am CT

September 17th, 2019

October 15th, 2019

November 19th, 2019

December 17th, 2019

January 21st, 2020

February 18th, 2020

March – No Webinar Sped Conference

April 21st, 2020

May 19th, 2020

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/directors.aspx


https://doe.sd.gov/sped/directors.aspx

MONTHLY SPED NEWSLETTERS

Sent out the second week of each month on the Sped Listserv

Professional Development

Federal and State highlights

Sped & DOE Resources

Join the listserv at http://www.k12.sd.us/Listserv/DOESpecialEd.htm


http://www.k12.sd.us/Listserv/DOESpecialEd.htm

2019 SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMSACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS

UNDERSTANDING THE PATH

Improving Educational

Results

Meeting Compliance

Students who are College,

Career and Life Ready

WHICH DISTRICTS ARE REVIEWED?

5 year cycle

Other Reasons Dispute resolution findings

Indicators 4B, 9 and 10 Disproportionality

Significant Disproportionality

Tentative Schedule Posted on

Accountability Process Website

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/accountability.aspx

WHO PARTICIPATES

IN THE PROCESS?

STATE LEVEL STAFF

Accountability Specialist

• DOE• Oversee • Corrective Action Plans• Correspondence

Special Education Program Staff

• Review team members

CONTRACTORS

Results Driven Accountability Specialists

(RDA)

• Leads the process• Communicates with

district• Technical assistance• Corrective Action Plan• Member of the review

team

Transition Service Liaison Project

• Transition Liaison Staff• Reviews transition files for

ages 15 years and older• Indicator 13 Data

Collection• Provides technical

assistance for high school transition

DISTRICT STAFF

• Communicates with team lead• Notifies sped staff• Make electronic copies for child count verification• Create a list of all initial and re-evaluations by staff within last year• Work with Team Lead on development of the review schedule and technical

assistance needs

Special Education Director or designee

• Attend file reviews• Assist reviewer with identify items in file and explain process• Take notes on potential compliance, best practice suggestions, and items to

discuss with administration • Bring questions regarding special education process

Special Education Staff

PROCESS OVERVIEW

Announcement Letter

Pre-site Activities

On-Site Activities

Corrective Action Plan

Closing the File

ANNOUNCEMENT LETTER

Special Education Programs sends a letter each spring informing districts that they will participate in an accountability review in the upcoming school year. Sent to Superintendents and Special Education Directors

PRE-SITE ACTIVITIES

PRE-SITE ACTIVITIESBetween August and October

Team Leader – sends an email to make initial contact with the District Superintendent and Special Education Director

o At this point the district’s primary contact person will be established.

• Schedule Letter – delivered through email and hard copy

o Provides the on-site review date(s)

o Schedule of the Review Day(s)

o Identifies the Review Team Members

CHILD COUNT VALIDATION

The team leader will validate the December child count.

An electronic copy of the front page of each IEP in effect at the current December child count will needed to be given to the team lead. District will also include a copy of the official child count from Launch Pad.

Note: child count validation is need as part

of a fiscal audit.

STATE CERTIFIED STAFF

The team lead will review the certification and job duties of district staff.

TRANSITION FILES

State Performance Plan Indicator 13 data is collected

Transition files across disability categories

At a minimum: 2 files per transition age teacher

Show evidence of inviting an outside agency process

COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Prior to the on-site review, the district will submit the most updated comprehensive plan to the team lead for review.

Local education agency comprehensive plans -- Contents.Each local education agency must have a current comprehensive plan approved by the school board on file with the district superintendent or designee. Documentation supporting the implementation of the local school district's comprehensive plan shall be maintained by the district for review by Special Education Programs staff during onsite monitoring visits. Districts shall update comprehensive plans consistent with § 24:05:21:01.02 and recertify their content annually.

ON-SITE ACTIVITIES

ON-SITE GENERAL SCHEDULE

Entrance Conference

Review team will meet to discuss assignments

File Reviews begin/Interviews

Lunch Break

Teacher file Reviews/Interviews cont…

Review team compile review data

Exit Conference

ENTRANCE ACTIVITIES

Entrance Conferenceo District’s contact determines who from the district attends

o Introduction and overview of the day

• The review team will meet before getting started with district staff

DISTRICT INTERVIEWS

Interviews will be conducted.

The team leader will meet with the Special Education Director to review the district’s policies, procedures, and practices.

FILE REVIEWS

Purpose: Ensure compliance

All Special Education Teachers including early childhood and Speech Pathologists will have at least one file reviewed with a review team member.

Provide technical assistance

How are the files selected: Special Education staff will identify 2 files that recently completed an initial

or re-evaluation.

Team leader will select student files to be reviewed based on the Sped Teachers caseload and a representative sample of disability categories, ranging from age 3-21, and other criteria.

Age 3-21 files

FILE REVIEWS

Student Files should contain:

Current evaluation reports

Individual Education Plan (IEP)

Parental Prior Written Notice (PPWN) and PPWN consent

Initial consent document

Behavior Plans, if applicable

Note: If potential non-compliance is found, the staff person being reviewed will be asked to make copies to support findings.

Prepare for file reviews: Utilize the Internal Review form on Accountability Process website, IEP TA guide and Eligibility Tools and Resources


OTHER FILES

Out of District Placements:

Team lead will request to review files related to out of district placements.

Ensure the district has all the evaluation and IEP documentation on the student available.

Private School:

If district has private school students, team lead will request to review a sample of student files.

May discuss some information on funds utilized for private schools.

OTHER FILES

Resources:

Sped Exit Codes can be found in Student Data Collections Desk

Guide or SPED Reporting Sheets.

Data pulled from the SD STARS Exit Report after second Friday in June

A sample of the following students will be requested:

Students, who graduated, will be pulled to ensure that PPWN was

issued and the graduation data was entered correctly in campus.

Summary of Performance for graduates and age out students will

also be checked.

https://doe.sd.gov/ofm/sims.aspx

STATE/DISTRICT ASSESSMENT: ACCOMMODATIONS AND ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT

The team will also be looking at accommodations that are provided during the State/District assessments ensure they are documented.

If district had students take alternate assessment, the review team will take a sample ensure students meet the criteria and IEP has appropriate documentation.

INDICATOR 13: TRANSITION IEP SECTION

In addition to age 3-21 case manager files for review:

A sample of transition files age 16-21 will be selected based on a representative sample of disability categories and number of transition students served.

The team will look at a minimum of 2 files per teacher of transition age.

At a minimum, one file per teacher must show evidence of invitation of outside agency process.

EXIT ACTIVITIES The Review Team will meet to compile the data

gathered throughout the review.

Exit Conferenceo District contact will determine who attends the exit

conference. We welcome all district staff.

o The team lead will go over positive feedback and potential findings

o The final determinations of non-compliance will be made by Special Education Programs

POST-SITE ACTIVITIES

CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)

Purpose:

OSEP Memo 09-02 identified two federal requirements:

o Prong 1

Fix the file in which non-compliance was identified.

If required, participate in technical assistance or training

o Prong 2

The district will provide additional documentation as evidence of continued correction of non-compliance.

INITIAL CAP PROCESS

Compile Evidence

Draft CAP

Reviewed and Finalized by SEP

Sent to District

Team Lead and District Complete Process

CAP APPEALS

Appealing the CAPo If the district feels an error was

made after reviewing the CAP

o District submits in writing, as soon as possible, the error made and support your finding to the State Accountability Program Specialist.

o Supporting evidence– SEP will review additional documentation submitted during appeal as well as the documentation copied during review to make a determination.

CAP TIMELINE A copy of the Accountability CAP will be sent in an email and a hard

copy by mail.

o Prong 1

60 days to complete Prong 1 corrections

Individual files requiring immediate correction

o Prong 2

1 year timeline starts from report date

Districts notified at 9 months if corrections are not being submitted

Additional IEP documentation and/or update policy, procedure, and practice.

ARSD 24:05:20:20

Note: if not completed in a timely manner, sanctions could be applied.

ARSD 24:05:20:23

CAP REPORTS

Public Report• Lists the ARSDs that are in non-

compliance• Posted to the State website

District Report• Prong 1• Student SIMS #/ Teacher Name• Specific non-compliance issued• What documents need to be submitted

• Prong 2• Requirements to show continued

compliance

CAP CLOSURE

District has met requirements for Prong 1 and Prong 2:

Team lead will notify the Accountability Program Specialist

Accountability Program Specialist will send the district a letter stating all items in the CAP have been met and the CAP is closed.

CAP is sent to the Superintendent and Special Education Director

Public Report is updated and posted to the website

PROCESS COMPLETE

EXPLORING COMMON FINDINGS

Parent Prior Written Notice (PPWN) – Consent to Evaluate

The school district shall provide notice to the parent that describes any evaluation procedures the district proposes or refuses to conduct.

The school district shall administer all evaluations needed based on suspected disability category and concerns team has in order to have comprehensive evaluation to make eligibility determinations.

EXPLORING COMMON FINDINGS

Measurable Annual Goals Accommodations

Services documentation

Transition Components

COMMON FINDINGS CONT…

PPWN - Content• The notice must include the following:• A description of the action proposed or refused by the

district, an explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of any other options the IEP team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected;

• A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report that the district uses as a basis for the proposal or refusal;

• A description of any other factors which are relevant to the district's proposal or refusal

• 5 day notice documentation • More information can be found at

http://doe.sd.gov/sped/webinars.aspx

ARSD 24:05:30:05

http://doe.sd.gov/sped/webinars.aspx

COMMON FINDINGS CONT…

Reports:

Skill based was completed in all areas.

Transition report created

Reports includes:● Assessment date(s),

● Name of the evaluator(s),

● Sources from which the

information was gathered

RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY(RDA)

PURPOSE OF RDA Establish a meaningful and continuous process focused on improving

academic results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities by connecting local data to improvement efforts.

Maintain a high level of compliance with IDEA federal regulations and South Dakota Administrative Rules for special education.

Support local districts in the process of self-assessment, evaluation, and improvement of compliance and results-focused efforts.

Link program improvement activities with multi-year planning and supports.

COMPONENT OF THE PROCESS

Risk Rubric Notification in March

Overview Meeting Data Retreat

Root Cause and Action Plan Implementation Internal Review

ProcessValidation Meeting

RISK RUBRIC COMPONENTS

Identified areas

District data compared to State Performance Plan targets every year

Districts not meeting target will look at making progress previous 3 years.

Districts will be placed in size category (small, medium, large)

DISTRICT LEVELS

Level 3

LEVEL 3 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS

3 years Notification in March

Assign RDA Coach

Overview Meeting

Develop a RDA committee Data Retreat Root Cause

and Action Plan Implementation

Internal Review Process

Validation Meeting

LEVEL 2 REQUIREMENTS

Every year designation

RDA Coach - limited

Overview

Develop a RDA Committee

Regional Data Retreat

Root Cause and Develop Action Plan (Coach Support)

Implementation (coach support)

Sped Internal Review

LOW NEEDS – LEVEL 1

(Optional) -Assembles RDA Committee to review SPED data, conduct root cause analysis, and/or develop action plan.

(Optional) -Participate in a local data retreat.

Access statewide trainings

Future:

Every SPED teacher in district will complete internal review of compliance practices and the district SPED director submits a statement of assurance of completion of review.

Submits Professional Learning Plan to SDDOE. (Form will be given by the state).

Years Identified:

Every year designation could change

FULL IMPLEMENTATION

QUESTIONS:

REGARDING THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS CAN BE DIRECTED

THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY SPECIALIST AT 605-773-3678

GENERAL SPECIAL EDUCATION QUESTIONS

Contact Regional Representative assigned to your district.

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/0819-SPED-reps.pdf

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/0819-SPED-reps.pdf

RESOURCES

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/index.aspxo Main Special Education Page

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/accountability.aspxo Internal Review Form

• https://doe.sd.gov/sped/IEP.aspxo IEP Forms

o Eligibility Documents

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/index.aspx


https://doe.sd.gov/sped/IEP.aspx

Transition IEP Plan

Employment

Post-Secondary EducationIndependent Living

Events

Contact Us

www.tslp.org

http://www.tslp.org/

• Familiarize yourself with the appropriate

regulations.

• Be aware of what the state’s monitoring

system looks like and how it impacts your

district.

• Be familiar with resources available.

• Be proactive!

Summary and Next Steps

Survey Monkey Link:


Thanks in advance for taking a few

moments to complete!

Webinar Evaluation


Keep the main thing

the main thing!

O F F I C E O F S P E C I A L E D U C AT I O N P R O G R A M S

Results-Driven Accountability

Core Principles

The Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) vision for Results-Driven

Accountability (RDA) is that OSEP will target its work and investments to best support

States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

The following core principles underlie and will guide OSEP’s RDA work:

1. OSEP is developing the RDA system in partnership with our stakeholders.

2. The RDA system is transparent and understandable to States and the general

public, especially individuals with disabilities and their families.

3. The RDA system drives improved outcomes for all children and youth with

disabilities regardless of their age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender,

socioeconomic status, or location.

4. The RDA system ensures the protection of the individual rights of each child or

youth with a disability and their families, regardless of his/her age, disability,

race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location.

5. The RDA system provides differentiated incentives, supports, and

interventions based on each State’s unique strengths, progress, challenges,

and needs.

6. The RDA system encourages States to direct their resources to where they

can have the greatest positive impact on outcomes and the protection of

individual rights for all children and youth with disabilities, and minimizes State

burden and duplication of effort.

7. The RDA system is responsive to the needs and expectations of the ultimate

consumers (i.e., children and youth with disabilities and their families) as they

identify them.

South Dakota 2019 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix

Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination1 Percentage (%) Determination

89.58 Meets Requirements

Results and Compliance Overall Scoring Total Points Available Points Earned Score (%)

Results 24 19 79.17 Compliance 20 20 100

2019 Part B Results Matrix

Reading Assessment Elements Reading Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

94 2

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

89 1

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

33 2

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

90 1


36 2


85 1

Math Assessment Elements Math Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

94 2

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

89 1


53 2


92 1


28 2


86 1

1 For a detailed explanation of how the Compliance Score, Results Score, and the Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination were calculated, review "How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2019: Part B."

2 | P a g e

Exiting Data Elements Exiting Data Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Dropped Out 23 1 Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Graduated with a Regular High School Diploma1

62 0

2019 Part B Compliance Matrix Part B Compliance Indicator2 Performance

(%) Full Correction of

Findings of Noncompliance

Identified in FFY 2016

Score

Indicator 4B: Significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of suspension and expulsion, and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with specified requirements.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 9: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 10: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation 99.89 No 2 Indicator 12: IEP developed and implemented by third birthday

97.72 Yes 2

Indicator 13: Secondary transition 93.71 Yes 2 Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data 100 2 Timely State Complaint Decisions 100 2 Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions 100 2 Longstanding Noncompliance 2

Special Conditions None Uncorrected identified noncompliance None

1 Graduated with a regular high school diploma as defined under the IDEA Section 618 State-reported data: These students exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities are eligible. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As defined in 34 CFR §300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect prior to June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degreethat is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or general educational development credential (GED).”

2 The complete language for each indicator is located in the Part B SPP/APR Indicator Measurement Table at: https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/17415

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON

STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF

IDEA Modified July 11, 2019

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

released State determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C for fiscal year 2017. The 2004 Amendments to the IDEA

require each State to develop a State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report

(APR) that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the

IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and

Part C SPP/APR include Indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators

that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR

and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each

State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

The IDEA also requires each State to report annually to the Secretary on its performance under

the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the

measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an

annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute.

The determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7 million

children with disabilities.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

▪ Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;

▪ Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;

▪ Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or

▪ Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

For the first time in 2014, and again in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, the Department made

Part B determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making

a State’s determination. For the first time in 2015 and again in 2016, 2017 2018, and 2019, the

Department made Part C determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each

equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2018, and again in 2019, the

Department made Part B determinations for the outlying areas, freely associated States, and the

Bureau of Indian Education using both compliance and results data, with a 60% weight and 40%

2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA 2

weight respectively. OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA),

brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while

balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of

children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies

(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and Lead Agencies and early

intervention service programs for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the

knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full

participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions that the Department must

take under specific circumstances for States that are not determined to “meet requirements.” If a

State “needs assistance” for two consecutive years, the Department must take one or more

enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical

assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside

funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State “needs intervention” for three

consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including

among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding

further payments to the State. Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department

must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to

the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.


IDEA PART B DETERMINATIONS

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B,

which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

MEETS REQUIREMENTS

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

North Dakota

Nebraska

New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (one year)

District of Columbia

Georgia

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Michigan

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Vermont

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (two or more consecutive years)

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

American Samoa

California

Colorado

Delaware

Federated States of Micronesia

Guam

Hawaii

Iowa

Idaho

Illinois

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

New Mexico

Nevada

New York

Oregon

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virgin Islands

Washington

NEEDS INTERVENTION (two years)

Palau

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

NEEDS INTERVENTION (eight consecutive years)

Bureau of Indian Education


IDEA PART C DETERMINATIONS

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C,

which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

MEETS REQUIREMENTS

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Connecticut

District of Columbia

Georgia

Idaho

Kentucky

Louisiana

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Wyoming

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (one year)

Arkansas

Kansas

Maryland

Maine

Michigan

North Carolina

New Hampshire

North Dakota

New Jersey

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

Tennessee

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (two or more consecutive years)

American Samoa

California

Colorado

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

Delaware

Florida

Guam

Hawaii

Iowa

Illinois

Indiana

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Maine

South Carolina

Vermont

Virgin Islands

IDEA Regulations MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

AND ENFORCEMENT

The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law on Dec. 3, 2004, by President George W. Bush. The provisions of the act became effective on July 1, 2005, with the exception of some of the elements pertaining to the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” that took effect upon the signing of the act. The final regulations were published on Aug. 14, 2006. This is one in a series of documents, prepared by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education that covers a variety of high-interest topics and brings together the regulatory requirements related to those topics to support constituents in preparing to implement the new regulations.1 This document addresses final regulatory requirements regarding monitoring, enforcement, and state performance plans.

IDEA Regulations

1. Establish requirements for state monitoring, enforcement, and annual reporting.

The State must monitor the implementation of Part B, enforce Part B in accordance with theprovisions at 34 CFR 300.604(a)(1), and (a)(3), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2(v), and (c)(2), andannually report on performance under Part B.

The primary focus of the State’s monitoring activities must be on:• Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities;

and• Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the Act,

with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related toimproving educational results for children with disabilities.

As a part of its responsibilities under 34 CFR 300.600(a), the State must use quantifiable indicators and such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the priority areas identified in 34 CFR 300.600(d), and the indicators established by the Secretary for the State performance plans.

1 Topics in this series include: Alignment With the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act; Changes in Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation; Children Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools; Discipline; Disproportionality and Overidentification; Early Intervening Services; Highly Qualified Teachers; Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities; Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team Meetings and Changes to the IEP; Individualized Education Program (IEP); Local Funding; Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement; National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS); Part C Amendments in IDEA 2004; Part C Option: Age 3 to Kindergarten Age; Procedural Safeguards: Surrogates, Notice and Consent; Procedural Safeguards: Mediation; Procedural Safeguards: Resolution Meetings and Due Process Hearings; Secondary Transition; State Complaint Procedures; State Funding; and Statewide and Districtwide Assessments. Documents are available on the IDEA Web site at: http://IDEA.ed.gov.

U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 1

The State must monitor the local educational agencies (LEAs) located in the State, using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in those areas: • Provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive

environment (LRE). • State exercise of general supervision, including child find, effective monitoring, the use

of resolution meetings, mediation, and a system of transition services as defined in 34 CFR 300.43 and in 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(9).

• Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.

[34 CFR 300.600] [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)] 2. Require that states develop performance plans.

Not later than December 3, 2005, each State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act, and describes how the State will improve such implementation: • Each State must submit the State’s performance plan to the Secretary for approval in

accordance with the approval process described in section 616(c) of the Act. • Each State must review its State performance plan at least once every six years, and

submit any amendments to the Secretary. • As part of the State performance plan, each State must establish measurable and rigorous

targets for the indicators established by the Secretary under the priority areas described in 34 CFR 300.600(d).

[34 CFR 300.601(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)]

3. Require state data collection. Each State must collect valid and reliable information as needed to report annually to the Secretary on the indicators established by the Secretary for the State performance plans: • If the Secretary permits States to collect data on specific indicators through State

monitoring or sampling, and the State collects the data through State monitoring or sampling, the State must collect data on those indicators for each LEA at least once during the period of the State performance plan.

• Nothing in Part B of the Act shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under Part B of the Act.

[34 CFR 300.601(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)]

4. Require state use of targets to analyze performance and report annually.

Each State must use the targets established in the State’s performance plan under 34 CFR 300.601 and the priority areas described in 34 CFR 300.600(d) to analyze the performance of each LEA.

[34 CFR 300.602(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(i)]


The State must: • Report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA located in the State on the

targets in the State’s performance plan; and • Make the State’s performance plan available through public means, including by posting

on the web site of the State educational agency (SEA), distribution to the media, and distribution through public agencies.

[34 CFR 300.602(b)(1)(i)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)] If the State, in meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 300.602(b)(1)(i), collects performance data through State monitoring or sampling, the State must include in its report under 34 CFR 300.602 (b)(1)(i)(A) the most recently available performance data on each LEA, and the date the data were obtained.

[34 CFR 300.602(b)(1)(ii)]

The State must report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State under the State’s performance plan. The State must not report to the public or the Secretary any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children, or where the available data are insufficient to yield statistically reliable information.

[34 CFR 300.602(b)(2) and (3)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and (iii)] 5. Require annual review by the Secretary of state performance reports and

determinations by the Secretary regarding state performance.

The Secretary annually reviews the State’s performance report submitted pursuant to 34 CFR 300.602(b)(2) and, based on the information provided by the State in the State’s annual performance report, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information made available, the Secretary determines if the State: • Meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act; • Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act; • Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act; or • Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act.

[34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(d)(1) and (2)(A)]

For determinations made under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv), the Secretary provides reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing on those determinations. • This hearing consists of an opportunity to meet with the Assistant Secretary for Special

Education and Rehabilitative Services to demonstrate why the Department should not make the determination described in 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1).

[34 CFR 300.603(b)(2)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(d)(2)(B)] 6. Require technical assistance and enforcement actions.

Needs assistance. If the Secretary determines, for two consecutive years, that a State needs assistance under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(ii) in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act, the Secretary takes one or more of the following actions:


• Advises the State of available sources of technical assistance that may help the State address the areas in which the State needs assistance, which may include assistance from the Office of Special Education Programs, other offices of the Department of Education, other Federal agencies, technical assistance providers approved by the Secretary, and other federally funded nonprofit agencies, and requires the State to work with appropriate entities. Such technical assistance may include: o The provision of advice by experts to address the areas in which the State needs

assistance, including explicit plans for addressing the area for concern within a specified period of time;

o Assistance in identifying and implementing professional development, instructional strategies, and methods of instruction that are based on scientifically based research;

o Designating and using distinguished superintendents, principals, special education administrators, special education teachers, and other teachers to provide advice, technical assistance, and support; and

o Devising additional approaches to providing technical assistance, such as collaborating with institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, national centers of technical assistance supported under Part D of the Act, and private providers of scientifically based technical assistance.

• Directs the use of State-level funds under section 611(e) of the Act on the area or areas in which the State needs assistance.

• Identifies the State as a high-risk grantee and impose special conditions on the State's grant under Part B of the Act.

[34 CFR 300.604(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(1)]

Needs intervention. If the Secretary determines, for three or more consecutive years, that a State needs intervention under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(iii) in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act, the following shall apply: • The Secretary may take any of the actions described in 34 CFR 300.604(a)(a) (Needs

Assistance). • The Secretary takes one or more of the following actions:

o Requires the State to prepare a corrective action plan or improvement plan if the Secretary determines that the State should be able to correct the problem within one year.

o Requires the State to enter into a compliance agreement under section 457 of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. (GEPA), if the Secretary has reason to believe that the State cannot correct the problem within one year.

o For each year of the determination, withholds not less than 20 percent and not more than 50 percent of the State's funds under section 611(e) of the Act, until the Secretary determines the State has sufficiently addressed the areas in which the State needs intervention.

o Seeks to recover funds under section 452 of GEPA. o Withholds, in whole or in part, any further payments to the State under Part B of the

Act.


o Refers the matter for appropriate enforcement action, which may include referral to the Department of Justice.

[34 CFR 300.604(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(2)] Needs substantial intervention. Notwithstanding 34 CFR 300.604 (a) (Needs Assistance) or 34 CFR 300.604(b) (Needs intervention), at any time that the Secretary determines that a State needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act or that there is a substantial failure to comply with any condition of an SEA's or LEA's eligibility under Part B of the Act, the Secretary takes one or more of the following actions: • Recovers funds under section 452 of GEPA. • Withholds, in whole or in part, any further payments to the State under Part B of the Act. • Refers the case to the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Education. • Refers the matter for appropriate enforcement action, which may include referral to the

Department of Justice. [34 CFR 300.604(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(3)]

Report to Congress. The Secretary reports to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate within 30 days of taking enforcement action pursuant to 34 CFR 300.604(a) (Needs Assistance), (b) (Needs Intervention), or (c) (Needs Substantial Intervention), on the specific action taken and the reasons why enforcement action was taken.

[34 CFR 300.604(d)] [20 U.S.C. 1416 (e)(5)] 7. Describe the circumstances under which the Secretary may withhold a state’s funds.

Prior to withholding any funds under Part B of the Act, the Secretary provides reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing to the SEA involved, pursuant to the procedures in 34 CFR 300.180 through 300.183. Pending the outcome of any hearing to withhold payments 34 CFR 300.605(a), the Secretary may suspend payments to a recipient, suspend the authority of the recipient to obligate funds under Part B of the Act, or both, after the recipient has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why future payments or authority to obligate funds under Part B of the Act should not be suspended. If the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to withhold further payments under 34 CFR 300.604(b)(2) or (c)(2), the Secretary may determine: • That the withholding will be limited to programs or projects, or portions of programs or

projects, that affected the Secretary’s determination under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1); or • That the SEA must not make further payments under Part B of the Act to specified State

agencies or LEAs that caused or were involved in the Secretary’s determination under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1).

Until the Secretary is satisfied that the condition that caused the initial withholding has been substantially rectified: • Payments to the State under Part B of the Act must be withheld in whole or in part; and


• Payments by the SEA under Part B of the Act must be limited to State agencies andLEAs whose actions did not cause or were not involved in the Secretary’s determinationunder 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1), as the case may be.

[34 CFR 300.605] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(4), (e)(6)]

8. Require states to notify the public of the pendency of an enforcement action.

Any State that has received notice under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(ii)-(iv) must, by means of apublic notice, take such measures as may be necessary to notify the public within the State ofthe pendency of an action taken pursuant to 34 CFR 300.604.

[34 CFR 300.606] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(7)]

9. Describe withholding procedures when responsibility for children with disabilities inadult correctional facilities has been assigned to other than the SEA.

If responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Act are met with respectto children with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated inadult prisons is assigned to a public agency other than the SEA pursuant to 34 CFR300.149(d), and if the Secretary finds that the failure to comply substantially with theprovisions of Part B of the Act are related to a failure by the public agency, the Secretarytakes appropriate corrective action to ensure compliance with Part B of the Act, except that:• Any reduction or withholding of payments to the State under 34 CFR 300.604 must be

proportionate to the total funds allotted under section 611 of the Act to the State as thenumber of eligible children with disabilities in adult prisons under the supervision of theother public agency is proportionate to the number of eligible individuals with disabilitiesin the State under the supervision of the SEA; and

• Any withholding of funds under 34 CFR 300.604 must be limited to the specific agencyresponsible for the failure to comply with Part B of the Act.

[34 CFR 300.607] [20 U.S.C. 1416(h)]

10. Describe state enforcement actions when an LEA is not meeting the requirements ofPart B.

If an SEA determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B of the Act,including the targets in the State's performance plan, the SEA must prohibit the LEA fromreducing the LEA’s maintenance of effort under 34 CFR 300.203 for any fiscal year.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to restrict a State from utilizing any other authorityavailable to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B of the Act.

[34 CFR 300.608] [20 U.S.C. 1416(f); 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11)]

11. Establish that the Secretary may use other enforcement authority to monitor andenforce Part B requirements.

Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to restrict the Secretary from utilizing anyauthority under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), including the provisions in 34


CFR parts 76, 77, 80, and 81 to monitor and enforce the requirements of the Act, including the imposition of special conditions under 34 CFR 80.12.

[34 CFR 300.609] [20 U.S.C. 1416(g)]


Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement

Revised June 2009

Regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2006, and became effective on October 13, 2006. Additional regulations were published on December 1, 2008 and became effective on December 31, 2008. Since publication of these regulations, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has received requests for clarification of some of these regulations. This is one of a series of question and answer (Q&A) documents prepared by OSERS to address some of the most important issues raised by requests for clarification on a variety of high-interest topics. Each Q&A document will be updated to add new questions and answers as important issues arise or to amend existing questions and answers as needed.

OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide States, State educational agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies (LEAs) with information regarding the IDEA requirements relating to monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement. This Q&A document represents the Department’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations.

The 2004 amendments to the IDEA included significant changes related to monitoring that placed an emphasis on improving educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities by focusing monitoring activities in certain priority areas and measuring performance using quantifiable indicators and qualitative indicators as needed to adequately measure performance. These changes affect the responsibilities of the Secretary and States in the area of monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement under the IDEA.

Requirements related to monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement are found in 34 CFR §§300.600 through 300.609 and include: (1) the Secretary’s responsibility to establish and enforce particular procedures for monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement actions; and (2) the State’s responsibility to monitor including implementing, enforcing, and annually reporting on the performance of LEAs under the IDEA through a State performance plan (SPP) and annual performance reports (APRs) under that SPP.

Changes in the Secretary’s responsibilities include the requirements for the Secretary to: (1) review and approve the SPP (34 CFR §300.601(a)(1)); (2) review States’ APRs (34 CFR §300.603(a)); (3) determine whether the States meet the requirements and purposes of Part B ofthe IDEA, need assistance, need intervention, or need substantial invention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA (34 CFR §300.603(b)); and (4) take certain enforcement actions (34 CFR §300.604).


PAGE 2

Changes in the State’s responsibilities include the requirements to: (1) submit an SPP to the Secretary that includes measurable and rigorous State-established targets for indicators established by the Secretary (34 CFR §300.601(a)); (2) monitor its LEAs under the priority areas related to the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), exercise of general supervision (including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, mediation and a system of transition services), and disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification (34 CFR §300.600(d)); (3) collect valid and reliable data to report annually to the Secretary on the State’s performance on the indicators in the SPP (34 CFR §300.601(b)); (4) report to the public on the performance of each of its LEAs on the targets in the SPP (34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i)(A)); and (5) carry out enforcement actions against those LEAs not meeting the requirements of Part B of the IDEA (34 CFR §§300.600(a) and 300.608). Generally, the questions and corresponding answers presented in this Q&A document required interpretation of the IDEA and its implementing regulations and the answers are not simply a restatement of the statutory or regulatory requirements. The responses presented in this document generally are informal guidance representing the interpretation of the Department of the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the context of the specific facts presented and are not legally binding. The Q&As in this document are not intended to be a replacement for careful study of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. The IDEA, its implementing regulations, and other important documents related to the IDEA and the regulations are found at. http://IDEA.ed.gov. If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please e-mail your comments to [email protected] and include Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement in the subject of your e-mail or write us at the following address: Patricia Guard, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW, room 4108, Washington, DC 20202.


PAGE 3

Table of Contents A. State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)........................... Page 5

A-1. Are States required to report their determinations (meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention) of each LEA’s performance in their APR submitted to OSEP?

A-2. What years are covered by the SPP submitted in December 2005? A-3. OSEP published a guidance document, entitled Part B SPP/APR Related

Requirements, which contains a detailed list of statutory and regulatory requirements related to each indicator. (See: http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/IDEA/bapr/2008/5relstedrequirements081308.pdf) Are States required to monitor the requirements related to each indicator included in this document for every year that an LEA fails to meet a target in the SPP?

A-4. If a State changes or updates its SPP, must the State resubmit the entire document or

just those portions that have changed? A-5. Where should a State report on correction of noncompliance identified by OSEP in its

response to the State’s SPP/APR? A-6. When the Department changes an indicator, or the measurement for an indicator, such

as Indicator B-7 Preschool Early Childhood Outcomes, is it permissible for a State to change the baseline and targets for that indicator in its SPP?

B. Public Reporting ............................................................................................................ Page 7

B-1. How does this reporting requirement relate to the requirement, contained in 34 CFR §300.601(b)(2), that any data collected through monitoring or sampling be collected at least once during the period of the SPP?

B-2. When is a State required to report the status of each LEA regarding indicators in the SPP? B-3. May States report intermediate unit (or regional) information rather than LEA

information for LEAs where the N size (total population of children with disabilities measured by the indicator in the LEA) is too small to report results for an LEA (e.g., the LEA’s one high school has two graduates with disabilities)?

B-4. Must State reports on LEA performance on SPP targets include actual data (i.e.,

percent scores) or is it permissible for States to simply indicate whether or not the LEA met the State’s SPP targets?


PAGE 4

C. Determinations and Enforcement ................................................................................ Page 9 C-1. When making determinations about an LEA’s performance, must States use the same

determination categories (i.e., meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention and needs substantial intervention) that OSEP uses with States?

C-2. Is the implementation of the enforcement actions related to the determinations

categories sequential? (That is, must a State be in two years of needs assistance before moving to three years of needs intervention)?

C-3. Must a State be in needs intervention for three years prior to OSEP implementing

enforcement actions (e.g., technical assistance, special conditions) or may OSEP impose enforcement earlier given a State’s especially poor performance?

C-4. Will OSEP provide an overall determination on each State’s performance, or will

there be separate determinations for each indicator? C-5. What action, if any, will OSEP take when a State’s determination status fluctuates

between the categories of needs assistance and needs intervention, but never remains in either category for two or more consecutive years?

C-6. If a State determines that an LEA cannot correct a monitoring finding within one year,

may that State take the same action available to the Secretary under section 457 of the GEPA (i.e., enter into a compliance agreement between the State and the LEA)?

C-7. States and LEAs may be in or out of compliance on specific compliance indicators

throughout the year. How will this process ensure that the determinations reflect the actual compliance status of LEAs within a State?

C-8. What are the opportunities for public input in the SPP/APR process? C-9. What factors must a State consider in making LEA determinations? C-10. What sanctions may be imposed and what enforcement actions may be taken by

SEAs under Part B of the IDEA or the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)?

C-11. Is a determination that the State makes about an LEA’s performance subject to appeal

by the LEA? C-12. What are examples of special conditions?


PAGE 5

A. State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)

Authority: The requirements for the State performance plan and annual performance report are found in the regulations at 34 CFR §§300.601 and 300.602(b)(2).

Question A-1: Are States required to report their determinations (meets requirements,

needs assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention) of each LEA’s performance in their APRs submitted to OSEP?

Answer: No. A State is not required to report in the State’s APR the determinations

the State made about each LEA.

Question A-2: What years are covered by the SPP submitted in December 2005? Answer: For the SPP submitted in December 2005, States must annually report on

performance for the academic years 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. The first APR, due February 1, 2007, was for the 2005-2006 year. Therefore, the six years began with the data for the 2005-2006 year. Under this schedule, the last APR under this SPP will be for the 2010-2011 academic year and will be due February 1, 2012.

Question A-3: OSEP published a guidance document, entitled Part B SPP/APR Related Requirements, which contains a detailed list of statutory and regulatory requirements related to each indicator. (See: http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/IDEA/bapr/2008/5relstedrequirements081308.pdf)

Are States required to monitor the requirements related to each indicator included in this document for every year that an LEA fails to meet a target in the SPP?

Answer: No. The “Related Requirements” guidance document, which OSEP distributes to Chief State School Officers, State Directors of Special Education, and State Data Managers, with the Part B SPP/APR materials, includes a list of the Part B monitoring priorities and indicators and the requirements from statutes (Part B of the IDEA and the General Education Provisions Act) and regulations that are related to each priority and indicator. The purpose of this document is to inform States of the statutory and regulatory requirements related to each indicator that will be reviewed by OSEP as part of Focused Monitoring. That is, if OSEP determines that it will do Focused Monitoring in a State because that State


PAGE 6

is low performing or in noncompliance with a specific indicator, OSEP will review the related requirements for that indicator as part of the Focused Monitoring. OSEP encourages States to examine their general supervision systems to determine how they address the related requirements, but States are not required to do so.

Question A-4: If a State changes or updates its SPP, must the State resubmit the entire document or just those portions that have changed?

Answer: The decision to resubmit the entire SPP or just those portions that have

been changed or updated is left to the State.

Question A-5: Where should a State report on correction of noncompliance identified by

OSEP in its response to the State’s SPP/APR? Answer: States should report on the correction of any noncompliance identified by

OSEP in the same section of the APR for which noncompliance was originally identified in the prior year’s SPP/APR response table. For example, if, in its Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006 APR, OSEP identified noncompliance for Indicator B-12, Early Childhood Transition, the State would report on correction of noncompliance related to early childhood transition in the APR section for Indicator B-12 in its FFY 2007 APR. In addition, the State should provide data in Indicator B-15 in its FFY 2007 APR on the status of timely correction of noncompliance identified in the FFY 2006 APR for Indicator B-15.

Question A-6: When the Department changes an indicator, or the measurement for an indicator, such as Indicator B-7 Preschool Early Childhood Outcomes, is it permissible for a State to change the baseline and targets for that indicator in its SPP?

Answer: Yes. It is permissible for a State to change baseline and targets for an SPP

indicator when the Department changes an indicator or measurement, unless the target is for a compliance indicator. Targets for compliance indicators are always 100 percent. Any State that considers revising a baseline or target should involve stakeholders in the process and include a justification for the change in the APR.


PAGE 7

B. Public Reporting Authority: Section 300.602(b)(1) of the regulations requires each State to report

annually to the public on the performance of each LEA located in the State on meeting the targets in the SPP.

Question B-1: How does this reporting requirement relate to the requirement, contained in 34 CFR §300.601(b)(2), that any data collected through monitoring or sampling be collected at least once during the period of the SPP?

Answer: For those indicators for which the Secretary permits States to collect data

through monitoring or sampling, data must be collected for each LEA at least once during the period of the SPP. States are also required to report to the public annually on the performance of each LEA in meeting the targets in the SPP. In meeting this annual reporting requirement, if a State collects performance data through monitoring or sampling, the State must include the most recently available performance data on each LEA as required under 34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i) and the date these data were obtained.

Question B-2: When is a State required to report the status of each LEA regarding indicators in the SPP?

Answer: Following the submission of the APR to OSEP on February 1, 2007, each

State was required to report to the public on the status of each of its LEAs in meeting the 2005-2006 targets identified in the State’s SPP for the indicators that apply to LEAs. (Some indicators, such as the indicator regarding timely resolution of State complaints, deal with State functions.) Pursuant to 34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i)(A) of the Part B regulations published on December 1, 2008 and in effect on December 31, 2008, States must complete this reporting as soon as practicable and no later than 120 days following the State’s submission of its APR to the Department.


PAGE 8

Question B-3: May States report intermediate unit (or regional) information rather than

LEA information for LEAs where the N size (total population of children with disabilities measured by the indicator in the LEA) is too small to report results for an LEA (e.g., the LEA’s one high school has two graduates with disabilities.)?

Answer: Yes. States may report information for intermediate units (or regions)

rather than for LEAs in situations where the N size is too small to report results without revealing personally identifiable information.

Question B-4: Must State reports on LEA performance on SPP targets include actual data (i.e., percent scores) or is it permissible for States to simply indicate whether or not the LEA met the State’s SPP targets?

Answer: The State’s report for each LEA must include actual LEA data (for

example, a specific percentage) that shows whether or not the LEA has met the State’s targets for each indicator that applies to LEAs.


PAGE 9

C. Determinations and Enforcement

Authority: The requirements for determinations and enforcement are found in the regulations at 34 CFR §§300.600(a), 300.603 and 300.604.

Question C-1: When making determinations about an LEA’s performance, must States

use the same determination categories (i.e., meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention and needs substantial intervention) that OSEP uses with States?

Answer: Yes. Pursuant to section 616(a) of the IDEA, States must use the same four

determination categories that the Department is required to use, which are as follows: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, and needs substantial intervention as indicated in 34 CFR §300.603(b).

Question C-2: Is the implementation of the enforcement actions related to the determinations categories sequential? (That is, must a State be in two years of needs assistance before moving to three years of needs intervention?)

Answer: No. The enforcement actions are not sequential.

Question C-3: Must a State be in needs intervention for three years prior to OSEP

implementing enforcement actions (e.g., technical assistance, special conditions) or may OSEP impose enforcement earlier given a State’s especially poor performance?

Answer: No. OSEP may impose enforcement earlier given a State’s especially

poor performance. Under section 616(g) of the IDEA, the Department may use, at any time, any authority under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) to monitor and enforce the requirements of the IDEA, regardless of the determinations made of the State’s status under section 616(d) of the IDEA.

Question C-4: Will OSEP provide an overall determination on each State’s performance, or will there be separate determinations for each indicator?

Answer: OSEP makes a single determination about the State’s performance in

implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA based on the State’s performance on all of the indicators, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information.


PAGE 10

Question C-5: What action, if any, will OSEP take when a State’s determination status

fluctuates between the categories of needs assistance and needs intervention, but never remains in either category for two or more consecutive years?

Answer: In such a situation, OSEP would be required to take the actions outlined in

34 CFR §300.604 based on the most recent determination category assigned by OSEP. For example, if in year 1, a State is in “needs assistance,” and in year 2 is in “needs intervention,” and in year 3, is in “needs assistance,” OSEP would not be required to take any of the enforcement actions listed in 34 CFR §300.604(a) under “needs assistance” because the State would not have been in “needs assistance” for two consecutive years. Moreover, OSEP would not be required to take any of the enforcement actions listed in 34 CFR §300.604(b) under “needs intervention” because the State would not have been in “needs intervention” for three or more consecutive years.

However, under section 616(g) of the Act, the Department may at any time

utilize any authority available to it under GEPA to monitor and enforce the requirements of the IDEA, regardless of the Department’s determination of the State’s status. The Department may use this authority to implement an enforcement action, as it determines appropriate.

Question C-6: If a State determines that an LEA cannot correct a monitoring finding within one year, may that State take the same action available to the Secretary under section 457 of the GEPA (i.e., enter into a compliance agreement between the State and the LEA)?

Answer: The authority to enter into a compliance agreement provided for under

section 457 of the GEPA applies only to agreements between the Department and States. The authority of a State to enter into a compliance agreement with an LEA is controlled by State law.

Question C-7: States and LEAs may be in or out of compliance on specific compliance indicators throughout the year. How will this process ensure that the determinations reflect the actual compliance status of LEAs within a State?

Answer: The Secretary’s determinations are based on the totality of the State’s data

in its APR and other publicly available information, including any compliance issues. The Department considers a variety of factors, including whether the State has provided valid and reliable data, and for compliance indicators, whether the State demonstrated compliance or


PAGE 11

timely correction of noncompliance. In instances where the State did not demonstrate compliance, the Department considers whether the State had nonetheless made progress in ensuring compliance over prior performance in that area. The Department considers whether the State has prior IDEA compliance issues, the State’s progress in resolving those issues, and whether the State provided any additional information requested by the Department in the prior year’s response to the State’s APR. In addition, the Department considers whether the State has publicly reported on the performance of each LEA on the State’s SPP targets. Determinations are made annually; therefore the determination about the State’s status is reviewed each year. As part of the APR, each State submits data for the past fiscal year and may also choose to submit additional, more recent data if such data would provide a better representation of the State’s current status.

Question C-8: What are the opportunities for public input in the SPP/APR process? Answer: As noted in the conference report to HR 1350, it is Congress’ expectation

that SPPs, indicators and targets will be developed with broad stakeholder input. As part of States’ SPP and APR submissions, OSEP requires States to provide information in the overview section of the SPP, clarifying how the State obtained broad input from stakeholders on the SPP.

Question C-9: What factors must a State consider in making LEA determinations? Answer: When making an annual determination on the performance of each LEA

under Part B of the IDEA, consistent with sections 616(a) and (e) of the IDEA, a State must consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators; (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings. In addition, States may consider results on performance indicators and other information. States must utilize the four categories in section 616(d) of the IDEA. OSEP’s guidance to States regarding how to make LEA determinations can be found at the following Web site: http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/content/view/283/47/


PAGE 12

Question C-10: What sanctions may be imposed and what enforcement actions may be

taken by SEAs under Part B of the IDEA or the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)?

Answer: A State may impose sanctions and enforcement actions consistent with the

regulations in 34 CFR §§300.600(a) and 300.608. Specifically: (1) the State must enforce Part B of the IDEA in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.604(a)(1) and (a)(3), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(v), and (c)(2); and (2) if a State determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B of the IDEA, including the targets in the SPP, the State must prohibit the LEA from reducing its maintenance of effort under 34 CFR §300.203 for any fiscal year; and (3) a State is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B of the IDEA.

Question C-11: Is a determination that the State makes about an LEA’s performance subject to appeal by the LEA?

Answer: Whether a State’s determination about an LEA’s performance may be

appealed is a State decision.

Question C-12: What are examples of special conditions? Answer: Special conditions are authorized in 34 CFR §80.12 of EDGAR and are

restrictions placed on a grant or subgrant. The regulations specify a number of examples of special conditions, such as payment on a reimbursement basis; requiring additional, more detailed reporting; requiring the grantee to obtain technical or management assistance; or requiring additional project monitoring.