2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Arizona
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Arizona
MS WORDView PDF
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON DC 20202 - 2600
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by
fostering educational excellence and ensuring equ al access.
U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION
O FFICE OF S PECIAL E DUCATION AND R EHABILITATIVE S ERVICES
June 25 , 2020
Honorable Kathy Hoffman
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Arizona Department of Education
1535 West Jefferson Street, Bin #2
Phoenix , Arizona 85007
Dear Superintendent Hoffman :
I am writing to advise you of the U. S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that Arizona needs assistance in implementing the r equirements of
Part B of the IDEA . This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and
information, including th e Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/An nual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and othe r publicly available
information.
Your State’s 2020 determina tion is based on the dat a reflected in the State’s “2020 Part B
Results - Driven Accountability Matrix” (RDA Matrix). The RDA Matrix is individualized for
each State and consists of:
(1) a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on Compliance Indicators and other
comp liance factors;
(2) a Results Matrix that includes scoring on Results Elements ;
(3) a Compliance Score and a Results Score ;
(4) an RDA Percentage based on both the Compliance Score and the Results Sc ore ; and
(5) the State’s Determination.
The RDA Matrix is further explained in a document, entitled “How the Department Made
Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Di sabilities Education Act in 2020 :
Part B ” (HTDMD).
The Office of Special Education Programs ( OSEP ) is continuing to use both results data and
compliance data in making determinations in 2020 , as it did for Part B determinations in 201 4,
2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 . (The specifics of the determination procedures and criteria
are set forth in the HTDMD and reflected in the RDA Matrix for your State.) In maki ng Part B
determinations in 2020 , OSEP continued to use results data related to:
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assess ments;
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
(2) the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently administered (school
year 201 8 - 201 9 ) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP);
(3) t he percentage of CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma; and
(4) the percentage of C WD who drop ped out.
You may access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/APR and other relevant data
by accessing the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool using your State - specific log - on information at
https://emaps.ed.gov/suite/ . When you access your State’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 State is
required to take. The actions that the State is required to take are in two places:
(1) actions related to the correc tion of findings of noncompliance are in the “OSEP
Response” section of the indicator; and
(2) any other actions that the State is required to take are in the “Required Actions” section
of the indicator.
It is important for you to review the Introduction to the SPP/APR, which may also include
language in the “ OSEP R esponse ” and/or “ Required Actions ” sections .
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(2) the HTDMD document;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “ 2020 Data Rubric Part B,” which shows how OSEP calculated the
State’s “Timely and Accurate State - Reported Data” score in the Compliance Matrix; and
(4) a document e ntitled “Dispute Resolution 2018 - 2019 ,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP use d to calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix .
As noted above, the State’s 2020 determination is Needs Assistance. A State’s 2020 RDA
Det ermination is Needs Assista nce if the RDA Percentage is at least 6 0% but less than 80%. A
State’s determination would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is
80% or above but the Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last
three IDEA Pa rt B grant awards (for FFYs 2017, 2018, and 2019 ), and those Speci fic Conditions
are i n effect at the time of the 2020 determination.
States were required to submit Phase II I Year Four of the SSIP by April 1, 2020 . OSEP
appreciates the State’s ongoing work on its SSIP and its efforts to improve results for students
with disabilities. We have carefully reviewed and responded to your submission and will provide
additional feedback in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, OSEP will continue to work with your
State as it implements the fifth year of Phase III of the SSIP, which is due on April 1, 2021 .
As a reminder, your State must report annually to the public, by posting on the Stat e educational
agency’s (SEA’s) webs ite, the performance of each local educational agency (LEA) located in
the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days after
the St ate’s submission of its FFY 2018 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(1) revie w LEA performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
(2) determine if each LEA “meets the requirements” of Part B, or “needs assistance,” “needs
intervention,” or “needs substantial intervention” in implementing Part B of the IDEA ;
(3) take appropriate enfo rcement action; and
(4) inform each LEA of its determination.
Further, your State must make its SPP/APR available to the public by pos ting it on the SEA’s
web site. Within the upcoming weeks, OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that:
(1) includes the State’s determination letter and SPP/APR, OSEP attachments , and all State
attachments that are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 ; and
(2) will be accessible to the public via the ed.gov website.
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve results for children and youth with disabilities
and looks forward to working with your State over the next year as we continue our important
work of improving the lives of children with disabilities and their families. Please contact yo ur
OSEP State Lead i f you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or want to request
technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Arizona
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary aHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LSame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) underFFY20132014201520162017Target >=80.00%80.00%80.00%8.00%80.00%Data62.72%63.34%64.42%68.98%66.40%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=8.00%75.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became avDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation 10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma5,710 SY 201Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate8,440 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Adjuste67.65%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with aProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)FFY 19 targets set OPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AOverall98.50%Actu93.82%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Targets for this indicator are the sameFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your f12,54812,82913,02212,34011,44310,9006234,979b. IEPs in regular assessment with no10,31710,55010,73410,0379,2338,8283,459f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; 12,36811,49910,9246264,657b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations1,110,0609,2888,8503,220f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards8GroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipaFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make availableC. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level and alternate acad5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAGrade 3XBGrade 4XCGrade 5XDGrade 6XEGrade 7XFGrade 8XGHSXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 3Target >=85.00%87.00%90.00%92.00%95.00%AGrade 316.80%Actual41.55%16.80%18.98%17.0BGrade 415.40%Actual41.18%15.40%18.49%18.22%25.34%CGrade 52014Target >=87.00%89.042.29%10.82%15.43%13.95%30.06%DGrade 62014Target >=88.00%90.00%92.00%94.00%96.00%EGrade 72014Target >=89.00%91.00%92.00%94.00%96.00%EGrade 79.13%Actual50.74%9.13%82.00%85.00%88.00%91.00%94.0%FGrade 88.84%Actual28.33%8.84%9.07%8.25%20.57%GHS20GHS16.08%Actual47.56%16.08%4.25%5.80%20.32%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBAGrade 32014Target >=79.00%83.00%86.00%90.00%93.00%AGrade 319.51%Actual39.43%19.577.00%81.00%85.00%89.00%92.0%BGrade 416.70%Actual30.62%16.70%19.35%19.32%40.44%C92.00%CGrade 514.60%Actual27.87%14.60%17.72%17.61%36.43%DGrade 62014Target >=74.0DGrade 610.03%Actual24.08%10.03%13.09%12.31%26.65%EGrade 72014Target >=75.00%79.024.39%9.56%11.13%9.43%19.76%FGrade 82014Target >=71.00%76.00%80.00%85.00%90.00%FG19.24%GHS2014Target >=75.00%79.00%84.00%88.00%92.00%GHS9.29%Actual21.31%9.29%3.60TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Grade 397.00%34.00%ReadingB >=Grade 497.00%35.0%ReadingC >=Grade 598.00%32.00%ReadingD >=Grade 698.00%29.0%ReadingE >=Grade 798.00%29.00%ReadingF >=Grade 897.00%27.0%ReadingG >=HS98.00%26.00%MathA >=Grade 397.00%38.00%MathB >=Grade 496.00%35.00%MathC >=Grade 596.00%33.00%MathD >=Grade 696.00%29.00%MathE >=Grade 796.00%27.00%MathF >=Grade 895.00%27.00%MathG >=HS96.00%27.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Targets for this indicator are the sameFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your f12,24712,52812,70511,99911,01610,4886234,426b. IEPs in regular assessment with noc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient aData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; 12,75712,02611,06910,5106264,107b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodati1,577995719596296f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scorGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency wa25.34%97.00%19.52%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageCGrade 512,7052,18930.06%98.00%17.23EGrade 711,0161,30522.97%98.0%11.85%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageFGrade 810,4881,020.32%98.00%8.63%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, AGrade 3Arizona cannot explain slippage directly since the assessments used in FFBGrade 4MSAA results for grade 4 were 37%; students who took the regular assessmeCGrade 5MSAA results for grade 5 were 40%%; students who took the regular assessmDGrade 6MSAA results for grade 6 were 49%%; students who took the regular assessmEGrade 7MSAA results for grade 7 were 46%; students who took the regular assessmeFGrade 8MSAA results for grade 8 were 41%; students who took the regular assessmeGHSMSAA results for grade HS were 47%; students who took the regular assessment (FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was ass96.00%20.13%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageCGrade 512,7572,17836.43%96.00%17.07%Did NEGrade 711,0691,22419.76%96.0%11.06%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageFGrade 810,5101,196.00%9.16%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if appAGrade 3Arizona cannot explain slippage directly since the assessments used in FFBGrade 4MSAA results for grade 4 were 43%; students who took the regular assessmeCGrade 5MSAA results for grade 5 were 45%; students who took the regular assessmeDGrade 6MSAA results for grade 6 were 48%; students who took the regular assessmeEGrade 7MSAA results for grade 7 were 44%; students who took the regular assessmeFGrade 8MSAA results for grade 8 were 47%; students who took the regular assessmeGHSMSAA results for grade HS were 50%; students who took the regular assessment (Regulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)FFY 19 targets set Percent = [(# of districts that meet the State-established n size (if applicable)FFY20132014201520162017Target =55.00%57.00%59.00%61.00%63.00%Data60.20%85.51%92.05%85.22%92.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=65.00%67.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement asWas sampling used? NOWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographicsInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the demographics of the paren8 - Required Actions8 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC EMBTargets must be 0%.Provide detailed information about the timely correction of noFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size reqNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findi0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingsFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corre9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresenConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation ofFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size reqNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproport0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingsFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: Child FindInstructions and InstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to selectFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.24%99.60%99.82%94.63%97.29%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evalFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage51950797.29%100%97.69%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNuProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Establishment of 60202000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State mustPercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are FFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.15%99.57%99.08%99.07%98.78%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and refc. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by thd. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluatione. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their f. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention servicesNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 Data SourceThe data for Indicator 12 are reported annually by all public educati303000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported l12 - Required ActionsIndicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstructions and Measurem200990.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data89.51%89.38%97.39%85.61%83.96%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that containFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage25030583.96%100%81.97%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProviNOProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Arizona state staFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected858500FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vThe ADE/ESS Program Support and Monitoring (PSM) specialists reviewed the child-s13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State mustEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have bee14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2018Target >=2A23.80%Data22.43%23.09%22.36%22.79%21.51%B2018Target >=60.20%62.20%64.20%66.20%6857.08%58.74%61.34%63.55%61.17%C2018Target >=74.10%75.40%76.70%78.00%79.30%C73.72%75.27%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=34.10%24.30%Target B >=70.20%56.50%Target C >=80.60%75.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As data and other information became avFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary sc2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leavi3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or t4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year ofNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in seconda1,7167,21021.51%34.10%23.80%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher ePartReasons for slippage, if applicableBA possible contributing factor for this slippage may be the addition of six new qPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same deWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the surveyInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are represeProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)The State has made 14 - State AttachmentsThe attachment(s) included are in compliance with Section SourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process CoSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Co9Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'As data and other information became available after the close of the 2018-2019 sFFY20132014201520162017Target >=65.22%66.00%66.00%67.00%68.00% - 78.00%Data65.22%52.38%59.09%55.56%50.00%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target68.00%78.00%68.00%78.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settleme15 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone15 - OSEP Response The State provided targets 16 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulateSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ44SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Re2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints17SY 2018-19 EMAPS11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints19Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'sFFY20132014201520162017Target >=72.22%74.00%76.00%78.00%74.00% - 84.00%Data72.22%62.86%78.26%57.50%77.08%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target74.00%84.00%74.00%84.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complain16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP Response The State provided targets Name: Alissa TrollingerTitle: Deputy Associate Superintendent, Exceptional Studen 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80670 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 September 17, 2020