2017 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Bureau of Indian Education
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDFView PDF
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON DC 20202-2600
www.e d.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
U
NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
O
FFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
J une 28, 2017
Honorable Tony L. Dearman
Director
Bureau of Indian Education
1849 C Street NW
MS -4657- MIB
Washington, DC 20240
D ear D irector Dearman:
I am writing to advise you of the U. S. Department of Education’ s (Department) 2017
determination under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ). The
Department has determined that the Bureau of Indian Education ( the BIE) needs intervention in
implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality
of the BIE ’s data and information, including the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2015 State
Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP /APR), other State-reported data, and other
publicly available information.
The BIE’s 2017 determination is based on the data reflected in the BIE ’s “Part B Compliance
Matrix – 2017” (Compliance Matrix) . The Compliance Matrix is further explained in a
document, entitled “ How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B in 201 7: Entities with Determinations Based
on Compliance” (HTDMD Compliance Only).
Although OSEP is continuing to use both results data and compliance data in making
determinations in 2017 for other States, the Department did not have sufficient results data to use
when making 2017 determinations for the following entities: American Samoa, the Bureau of
Indian Education, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, Guam, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the Virgin
Islands. Therefore, the Department is using the criteria set forth in the HTDMD Compliance
Only, which are similar to the criteria the Department used to make determinations for these
entities in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. In making Part B determinations in 2017 for other States,
OSEP used compliance data and results data related to the partici pation of children with
disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments, the participation and performance of CWD
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and exiting data on CWD who
dropped out and CWD who graduated with a regular hi gh school diploma, as reported by States
under section 618 of the IDEA. The entities have results data available for some, but not all, of
these Results Elements.
Page 2—Chief State School Officer
The Department is considering using both compliance and results data for the entities’ 2018
determinations. Section 616(a)(2) of the IDEA requires that the primary focus of IDEA
monitoring must be on improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children
with disabilities, and ensuring that States meet the IDEA program requirements, with a particular
emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for
children with disabilities. We believe that taking this more balanced approach, using both
compliance and available results data, is con sistent with this statutory provision and will allow
entities to better focus on improving results for children with disabilities who they serve. As we
consider using results data in determinations, OSEP will provide the entities with an opportunity
to com ment and provide input on how we should use results data when making determinations in
2018 under IDEA section 616.
You may access the results of OSEP’s review of the BIE’s SPP/APR and other relevant data by
accessing the SPP/APR module using your entity -specific log -on information at
osep.grads360.org. When you access the BIE’s SPP/APR on the site, you will find , in Indicators
1 through 16, the OSEP Response to the indicator and any actions that the BIE is required to
take. The actions that the BIE is re quired to take are in two places:
(1) actions related to the correction of findings of noncompliance are in the “OSEP
Response” section of the indicator; and
(2) any other actions that the BIE is required to take are in the “Required Actions” section of
the indi cator.
It is important for you to review the Introduction to the SPP/APR, which also include s language
in the “OSEP R esponse” and/or “ Required Actions ” sections.
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments to the Prog ress
Page:
(1) the BIE’s Compliance M atrix;
(2) the HTDMD Compliance Only document;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “201 7 Data Rubric Part B,” which shows how OSEP calculated the
BIE’s “Timely and Accurate State- Reported Data” score in the Compliance Matrix;
(4) a document entitled “Dispute Resolution 2015- 16,” which includes the IDEA section 618
data that OSEP used to calculate the BIE’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix; and
(5) a Data Display, which presents certain entity -reported data in a transparent, user -friendly
manner and is helpful for the public in getting a broader picture of the BIE’s performance
in key areas.
As noted above, the BIE’s 2017 determination is Needs Intervention. The Department identifies
an entity whose determination is based on compliance data only as needing interventi on under
IDEA Part B if its 2017 Part B Compliance Matrix Percentage is below 75%, and if the entity has
either very low (below 50%) or not valid and reliabl e data for a Compliance Indicator, or Special
Conditions for multiple years for failing to comply with key IDEA Part B requirements. The
major factors contributing to the BIE’s 2017 Needs Intervention determination are: (1) the BIE’s
2017 Part B Compliance Matrix Percentage of 37.5%; and (2) the BIE’s longstanding
noncompliance.
Page 3—Chief State School Officer
In addition, the Department has imposed Special Conditions on the BIE’s last 10 (FFY 2007-
2016) IDEA Part B grant awards, and the BIE has failed to meet the Special Conditions imposed
on its FFY 2016 IDEA Part B grant award. OSEP determined that the BIE has failed to complete
the corrective actions contained in Section C o f its Corrective Action Plan (CAP). Those
corrective actions, which the BIE was required to complete under the S pecial Conditions
imposed on its FFY 2016 IDEA Part B grant award, related to: ( 1) the BIE’s implementation of
fiscal monitoring procedures to ensure that BIE -operated schools and tribally -operated schools
are ensuring the appropriate use of Part B funds a llocated under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A) ; (2)
the BIE’s compliance with the timeline requirements for resolving State complaints and
scheduling mediation sessions under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.152(a) and 300.506(b)(5), respectively ;
( 3) the BIE’s compliance with the data reporting requirements under sections 612(a)(16)(D),
616(b)(2)(B) and 618 of the IDEA and 34 CFR § 300.160(f); and (4) the BIE’s compliance with
the secondary transition requirements under section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) of the IDEA and 34
C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b). The BIE must take the steps necessary to ensure that it can
report compliance with these requirements.
The BIE also recei ved a determination of Needs Intervention in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and
2016 for its FFYs 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 SPP/APRs, and this is the sixth consecutive
year that the BIE is receiving a determination of Needs Intervention. Under IDEA section
616(e)(2), if the Secretary determines a State to need intervention for three or more consecutive
years, t he Secretary must take one or more of the six enforcement actions identified in IDEA
section 616(e)(2)(B) and may take, under IDEA section 616(e)(2)(A), one of the three
enforcement actions identified in IDEA section 616(e)(1). Accordingly, under IDEA section
616(e)(2)(B)(i), the Secretary is requiring the BIE to submit a CAP , because the Secretary has
determined that the BIE should be able to correct the proble ms that are the basis for its Needs
Intervention determination within one year from the date of t his determination letter, and other
enforcement remedies under IDEA section 616(e)(2)(B) are not appropriate at this time.
The BIE must submit a CAP that ensures that it can meet, by the end of the fourth quarterly
reporting period for the 2017- 2018 school year under Section C of the CAP, all of the Special
Conditions that will be imposed on its FFY 2017 IDEA Part B grant award. For the reasons
explained in the BIE’s FFY 2017 Special Conditions, the corrective action plan must address the
steps the BIE will take to: (1) implement fiscal monitoring procedures to ensure that BIE -
operated schools and tribally -operated schools are ensuring the appropriate use of Part B funds
allocated under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A); (2) demonstrate compliance with the timeline
requirements for resolving State complaints and scheduling mediation sessions under 34 C.F.R.
§§ 300.152(a) and 300.506(b)(5); (3) demonstrate compliance with the data reporting
requirements under sections 612(a)(16)(D), 616(b)(2)(B) and 618 of the IDEA a nd 34 CFR
§ 300.160(f) ; and (4) demonstrate compliance with the secondary transition requirements in
IDEA section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 CFR §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b). The BIE must
submit its corrective action plan with its final quarterly progres s report on Section C of the CAP
for the 2016- 2017 school year, due on July 31, 2017, as well as quarterly progress reports in
accordance with the reporting and timeline requirements specified in the Special Conditions that
OSEP will impose on the BIE’s FF Y 2017 Part B grant award.
Page 4—Chief State School Officer
States were required to submit Phase II I of the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) by April
3, 2017. OSEP appreciates the entity ’s ongoing work on its SSIP and its efforts to improve
results for students with disabilities. We have carefully reviewed your submission and will
provide feedback in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, OSEP will continue to work with your
entity as it implements the second year of Phase III of the SSIP, which is due on April 2, 2018.
Pursuant to sec tion 616(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA and 34 CFR §300.603(b)(2), a State that is
determined to “need intervention” or “need substantial intervention,” and does not agree with
this determination, may request an opportunity to meet with the Assistant Secretary to
de monstrate why the Department should change the State’s determination. To request a hearing,
submit a letter to Kimberly M. Richey, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20202 within 15 days of the date of this letter. The letter must include the
basis for your request for a change in the BIE ’s determination.
As required by IDEA section 616(e)(7) and 34 CFR §300.606, the BIE must notify the public
within the BIE’s jurisdiction that the Secretary of Education has taken the above enforcement
actions, including, at a minimum, by posting a public notice on its w ebsite and distributing the
notice to the media and through public agencies.
As a reminder, the BIE must report annually to the public, by posting on the BIE’s website, the
performance of each school funded by the BIE on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as
practicable, but no later than 120 days after the BIE’s submission of its FFY 2015 SPP/A PR. In
addition, the BIE must:
(1) review school performance against targets in the BIE’s SPP/APR;
(2) determine if each school “meets the requirements” of Part B, or “needs assistance,”
“needs intervention,” or “needs substantial intervention” in implementing P art B of the
IDEA ;
(3) take appropriate enforcement action; and inform each school of its determination.
Further, t he BIE must make its SPP/APR available to the public by posting it on its web site.
Within the next several days, OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile for your entity that:
(1) will be accessible to the public;
(2) includes the entity’s determination letter and SPP/APR, and all related entity and OSEP
attachments; and
(3) can be accessed via a URL unique to your entity, which the BIE can use to make its
SPP/APR accessible to the public.
We will provide you with the unique URL when it is live.
Page 5—Chief State School Officer
OSEP appreciates the BIE’s efforts to improve results for children and youth with disabilities
and looks forward to working with your entity over the next year as we continue our important
work of improving the lives of children with disabilities and their families. Please contact your
OSEP State Lead i f you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or want to request
technical assistance.
Sincerely,
/s/ Ruth E. Ryder
Ruth E. Ryder
Acting Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: BIE Director of Special Education
(Grant Year 2015-2016—Issued June 28, 2017) Contact the Partner Support Center at EDEN-Submission-System@ed.gov or 877-HLP-EDEN (877-457-3336) for state profile.
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-61882 wp-custom-logo wp-embed-responsive with-font-selector no-anchor-scroll footer-on-bottom animate-body-popup social-brand-colors hide-focus-outline link-style-standard has-sidebar content-title-style-normal content-width-normal content-style-boxed content-vertical-padding-show non-transparent-header mobile-non-transparent-header kadence-elementor-colors elementor-default elementor-kit-82278
Last modified on July 6, 2017