2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Bureau of Indian Education
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Bureau of Indian Education
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 equal access.
U NITED S TATES D EPARTMENT OF E DUCATION
O FFICE OF S PECIAL E DUCATION AND R EHABILITATIVE S ERVICES
June 2 5 , 20 20
Honorable Tony Dearman
Direc tor , Bureau of Indian Education
U.S. Department of Interior
1849 C Street Northwest,
MS - 3609 MIB
Washington , District of Columbia 20240
Dear Director Dearman :
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 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) 2018 State
Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR), ot her State - reported data, and other
publicly available information.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is continuing to use both results and
compliance data in making determinations for outlying areas, freely associated States, and the
BIE (the Entities) in 2020, as it did for determinations in 2019. 1
The BIE ’s 2020 determination is
based on the data reflected in the BIE ’s “2020 Part B Results - Driven Accountability Matrix”
(RDA Matrix). The RDA Matrix is individualized for each State and consis ts of:
(1) a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on Compliance Indicators and other
compliance 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 Sco re and the Results Score; and
(5) The BIE ’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 Disabilities Education Act in 2020 :
1
OSEP has used results data on the participation and performance of children with disabilities on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) in making determinations for States (but not Entities) since 2014. Although t he BIE is the only
E ntity that administer s the NAEP , OSEP has not used NAEP data in making the BIE’s determinations because the BIE’s NAEP
data were previously not available. However, given that the BIE’s NAEP data are now available, OSEP is considering using the
NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2021 determination under IDEA section 616(d) .
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
Freely Associated S tates, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education - Part B”
(HTDMD).
The specifics of the determination procedures and criteria are set forth in the HTDMD and
reflected in the RDA Matrix for the BIE . In making Part B determinations in 2020, OSEP
cont inued to use results data related to:
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments;
(2) the percentage of CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma; and
(3) the percentage of CWD who dropped out.
You may acc ess the results of OSEP’s review of the BIE ’s SPP/APR and other relevant data by
accessing the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool using your Entity - specific log - on information at
https://emaps.ed.gov/suite/ . When you access your Entity’s SPP/APR on the site, you will find,
in applicable Indicators 1 through 16, the OSEP Response to the indicator and any actions that
the Entity is required to take. The actions that the Entity is required 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 Entity 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 Response” and/or “Required Actions” sections.
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments:
(1) BIE ’s RDA Matrix;
(2) the HTDMD document;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “2020 Data Rubric Part B ,” which shows how OSEP calculated the
BIE “Timely and Accurate State - Reported Data” score in the Compliance Matrix; and
(4) a document entitled “Dispute Resolution 2018 - 2019,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used to calculate BIE ’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix.
As noted above, the Department has determined that the BIE needs intervention in implementing
the requirements of Part B of IDEA. The Department identifies a State or Entity as needing
intervention under IDEA Part B if its RDA Percentage is less than 60%. The BIE ’s RD A
Percentage is 32.5%. As explained below and in the enclosures to this letter, the major factors
contributing to the BIE’s 2020 Needs Intervention determination are: (1) the BIE’s low
performance under Indicator 13 (secondary transition requirements); (2) the BIE’s RDA score o f
zero for the exiting data elements; and (3) the BIE’s longstanding noncompliance.
I. Major Factors Contributing to the BIE’s 20 20 RDA Needs Intervention Determination
A. Low Performance under Indicator 13
The data that the BIE provided in its FFY 201 8 SPP/ APR demonstrate continued noncompliance
with the secondary transition requirements in IDEA section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C . F . R .
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
§§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b). Under Indicator 13, the BIE was required to provide data on the
percent of youth with indiv idualized education programs (IEPs) aged 16 and above with an IEP
that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based
upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study,
t hat will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals
related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student
was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services we re to be discussed and evidence
that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team
meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. In its
FFY 201 8 SPP/APR, the BIE’s reported FFY 201 8 data for Indicator 13 were 16. 67 percent .
The BIE’s low level of compliance with the secondary transition requirements has been a n eeds
i ntervention factor and a Special or Specific Condition 2
since June 2016. Becaus e the BIE did
not ensure compliance with the secondary transition requirements, the Department continued to
impose Special or Speci fic Conditions on the BIE’s FFY 2017 , FFY 2018 , and FFY 2019 IDEA
Part B grant award s in this area. In OSEP’s June 30, 2017, July 18, 2018, and July 1, 2019
determination letter s , pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)(2)(B)(i), the Secretary required the BIE to
submit a corrective action plan (CAP) that addressed the actions the BIE would take to
demonstrate compliance with the second ary transition requirements . Further, in OSEP’s July 18,
2018 , and July 1, 2019 , determination letter s , pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)(1)(B) and
(e)(2)(A), the Department directed the BIE to use $300,000 of its FFY 2018 and its FFY 2019
administrative funds under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A) and 34 C . F . R . § 300.710(a) to address its
continued low level of compliance with the requirements for secondary transition and to improve
the accuracy of its secondary transition data.
B. RDA Score of Zero for Certain Results Elements
The BIE’s 20 20 RDA Percentage is 3 2 .5 percent, which consists of 60 percent of the BIE’s
Compliance Score and 40 percent of the BIE’s Results Score. In the 20 20 Part B Results Matrix,
the BIE received a score of zero on both exiting data elements (i.e., the percentage of children
with disabil ities who dropped out over the previous three reporting years, and the percentage of
children with disabilities who graduated with a regular high school diploma over the previous
three reporting years). As demonstrated by the section 618 exiting data repor ted by the BIE, a
high percentage of students with disabilities drop out of BIE - funded schools , and a low
percentage of students with disabilities graduate with a regular high school diploma (See Results
Matrix). This means that many of the BIE’s students with disabilities leaving school are not
adequately prepared for further education, employment, and independent living.
C. Longstanding Noncompliance
The Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the BIE’s last 1 3 (FFY 2007 –
FFY 201 9 ) IDEA Part B grant awards, and the BIE has failed to meet the Speci fic Conditions
imposed on its FFY 201 9 IDEA Part B grant award. OSEP determined that the BIE failed to
complete the corrective actions contained in Section C of its 201 9 - 20 20 CAP. Those corrective
2
Pursuant to the requirements in 2 C . F . R . § 200.207, the term “Specific Condition” is used, rather than “Special
Condition , ” beginning with FFY 2018 IDEA Part B grant awards that are issued subject to additional requirements.
In this letter, the term “Special Conditions” is used when referencing the BIE ’s IDEA Part B grant awards and
required reporting associated with the receipt of those funds for years pr ior to FFY 2018.
Page 4 — Chief State School Officer
actions, which the BIE was required to complete under the Spec ific Conditions imposed on its
FFY 201 9 IDEA Part B grant award, required the BIE 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; (2) demons t rate compliance with the timeline requir ements for
resolving State complaints under 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a) and (b); (3) develop and implement
procedures to collect and report valid and reliable data required under sections 616 and 618 of
the IDEA in a timely fashion; (4) develop and implement pr ocedures to ensure that the BIE will
publicly report on the assessment of children with disabilities in the same manner and frequency
as it reports on the assessment of children without disabilities, as required under 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.160(f); (5) develop an d implement a corrective action plan that addresses the actions the
BIE will take to address the noncompliance with secondary transition requirements in IDEA
section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b) and improve the
accuracy of the secondary transition data; (6) develop and implement a spending plan for the use
of the directed FFY 2018 and FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds to address
noncompliance with the secondary transition requirements and improve the accuracy of t he data,
and provide evidence of the use of those directed funds; (7) improve exiting data by utilizing
available technical assistance resources; and ( 8 ) ensure that all students with disabilities enrolled
in San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School and other B IE - funded schools covered by the expired
contracts received related services in accordance with their individualized education programs
(IEPs) and any compensatory services determined necessary by the IEP Teams, as required by
IDEA section 612(a)(1) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320 and 300.323(c)(2), and that all initial
evaluations are conducted within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation in
accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(c)(1) ; and implement procedures to ensure compliance in
all other BI E - funded schools with these requirements and to prevent contractual problems that
could result in a similar disruption of services in the future . In addition to the Specific
Conditions , the Department withheld 20 percent (i.e., $780,002) of the BIE’s FFY 2 019 IDEA
Part B administrative funds , given the BIE’s longstanding noncompliance with the IDEA
requirements that directly affect the appropriate provision of special education and related
services to children with disabilities attending BIE - funded schools, and its failure to provide
required information in a timely manner. The Department also directed the BIE to use $300,000
of its FFY 2019 IDEA Part B administrative funds to address its continued low level of
compliance with secondary transition requiremen ts and to improve the accuracy of its secondary
transition data.
II. 20 20 RDA Determination and Enforcement Action
The BIE also received a determination of n eeds i ntervention in 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016
2017 , 2018 , and 2019 for its FFYs 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 , 2016, and 201 7
SPP/APRs, and this is the ninth consecutive year that the BIE is receiving a determination of
n eeds i ntervention . U nder IDEA section 616(e)(2), if the Secretary determines a State to need
int ervention for three or more consecutive years, the Secretary may take, under IDEA section
616(e)(2)(A), one of the three enforcement actions identified in IDEA section 616(e)(1) and must
take one or more of the six enforcement actions identified in IDEA se ction 616(e)(2)(B) .
Pursuant to section 616(d)(2)(B) of the IDEA and 34 C . F . R . § 300.603(b)(2), an Entity that is
determined to be “need intervention” or “need substantial intervention” and does not agree with
this determination, may request an opportunity to meet with the Assistant Secretary to
Page 5 — Chief State School Officer
demonstrate why the Department should change the Entity’s determination. To request a hearing,
submit a letter to Mark Schultz , Delegated the authority to perform the functions and duties of
the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Washin gton, 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 your Entity’s
determination
A. Directed Use of Funds
In OSEP’s July 18, 2018 , determination letter, pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)( 1)(B) and
(e)(2)(A), the Department directed the BIE to use $300,000 of its FFY 2018 administrative funds
under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A) and 34 C . F . R . § 300.710(a) to address its continued low level
of compliance with the requirements for secondary transition and to improve the accuracy of its
secondary transition data. Likewise, in OSEP’s July 1, 2019, determination letter, the Department
directed the BIE to use $300,000 of its FFY 2019 administrative funds under IDEA section
611(h)(1)(A) and 34 C . F . R . § 300.710(a) to address the same secondary transition requirements.
Further, for both the FFY 2018 directed funds and the FFY 2019 directed funds , the Department
required the BIE to develop, implement, and report progress on, a spending plan to expend the
directed funds, that demonstrates how the directed funds will be used to pay for strategies and
activities that address the suspected or known reasons for the noncompliance with the secondary
transition requirements in IDEA section 614(d)(1)( A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and
300.321(b) and that are reasonably designed to correct that noncompliance and improve the
accuracy of the data. The BIE was required to expend t he full $300,000 of the FFY 2018 directed
funds pursuant to the spending plan by June 30, 2019 , but the BIE requested, and OSEP granted ,
two extensions , with the second and final extension allow ing the BIE to expend the FFY 2018
directed funds by April 30, 2020 . As noted in OSEP’s letter dated May 26, 2020, responding to
the BIE’s Third Quarter progress report for the CAP, the BIE must: (1) provide documentation to
OSEP that $125,000 of the FFY 2018 directed funds were expended, by April 30, 2020, for the
salary of the staff member whose duties consist exclusively of su pporting BIE - funded schools in
compliance with secondary transition requirements; and (2) provide an assurance that the
remaining balance of $175,000, or $300,000 if the documentation described in (1) is not
provided, of the FFY 2018 directed funds will no t be expended. With respect to With respect to
t he FFY 2019 directed funds , which the BIE was required to expend by June 30, 2020 , the BIE
notified OSEP on April 7, 2020, of its inability to expend the full $300,000 of the FFY 201 9
directed funds by the de adline and requested an extension. In OSEP’s letter dated May 26, 2020,
OSEP grant ed a one - year extension of the deadline , giving the BIE until June 30, 2021, to spend
the $300,000 of the FFY 2019 directed funds in accordance with a revised spending plan
a pproved by OSEP . As a result, the BIE must: (1) p rovide documentation to OSEP that $125,000
of the FFY 2019 directed funds have been expended for the salary of the staff member whose
duties consist exclusively of supporting BIE - funded schools in compliance with secondary
transition requirements ; (2) p rovide a revised spending plan for the remaining $175,000 of F FY
2019 directed funds; and (3) p rovide updates in the quarterly CAP reports on the expenditure of
the remaining balance of FFY 2019 directed funds .
Furthermore, because the BIE’s continued very low level of compliance under SPP/APR
Indicator 13 (16.67%) contributed to the BIE’s 2020 Needs Intervention determination under
section 616 of the IDEA (see section I.A above ), OSEP is directing $600,000 of the BIE’s FFY
2020 administrative funds under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.710(a) for the
Page 6 — Chief State School Officer
BIE to use at the school level, not Bureau level, to improv e compliance with the requirements for
secondary transition and the accuracy of secondary transition data , pursuant to IDEA section
616(e)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A) . OSEP is specifically requiring the BI E to expend these FFY 2020
directed funds on secondary transition programs in BIE - funded school s with high school
programs.
The BIE must develop, implement, and report progress on, a spending plan to expend the FFY
2020 directed funds by July 1, 20 21 that demonstrates how the directed funds will be expended
at the BIE - funded schools with high school programs and will be used to pay for strategies and
activities that address the suspected or known reasons for the noncompliance with the secondary
transition r equirements in IDEA section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C . F . R . §§ 300.320(b) and
300.321(b) and that are reasonably designed to correct that noncompliance and improve the
accuracy of the data . No later than October 31, 2020, t he BIE must submit, along with its
proposed FFY 2020 spending plan, a report of the BIE’s FFY 201 9 secondary transition
compliance data disaggregated by compliance item and BIE - funded school, and the BIE’s
analysis of the disaggregated data, including suspected or known reaso ns for any noncompliance .
The BIE’s proposed FFY 2020 spending plan must target the use of the FFY 2020 directed funds
on secondary transition programs in BIE - funded schools with high school programs, based on a
careful review of the BIE’s FFY 2019 seconda ry transition data, and must include: (1) the
activities that will be carried out with those FFY 2020 directed funds; (2) the costs associated
with each of the activities; (3) a projected timeline for using the FFY 2020 directed funds to pay
the costs asso ciated with each of the activities that demonstrates that the funds will be used by
July 1, 202 1 ; and (4) an explanation of how the activities will result in improved compliance
with secondary transition requirements and improved accuracy of secondary tran sition data. The
BIE must also describe the documentation it will provide to demonstrate the FFY 2020 directed
funds were used in accordance with its FFY 20 20 spending plan. In addition, to ensure that the
BIE can increase compliance with the secondary tra nsition requirements and improve the
accuracy of its secondary transition data within one year, the BIE must expedite the use of the
directed FFY 20 20 IDEA Part B administrative funds .
D. Technical Assistance
Pursuant to these requirements, the Secretary is advising the BIE of available sources of
technical assistance, including OSEP - funded technical assistance centers and resources at the
following website: https://osep.grads360.org/#program/highlighted - resour ces , and requiring the
BIE to work with appropriate entities. In addition, the BIE should consider accessing technical
assistance from other Department - funded centers such as the Comprehensive Centers with
resources at the following link: https://compcenternetwork.org/states . The Department directs the
BIE to access technical assistance related to those exiting data elements for which the BIE
received a score of zero (i.e., those exiting data elements identified on the Part B Results Matrix
and described in section I.B of this letter) .
The BIE must report, in the quarterly progress repor ts it submits for the 20 20 - 202 1 CAP, on: (1)
the sources from which it received technical assistance related to those exiting data elements for
which the BIE received a score of zero on the Part B Results Matrix; and (2) the actions the BIE
took as a resul t of that technical assistance.
Page 7 — Chief State School Officer
E. Corrective Action Plan
In addition, pursuant to IDEA section 616(e)(2)(B)(i), the Secretary is requiring the BIE to
submit a CAP, because the Secretary has determined that, in combination with directing the use
of funds as described above, the BIE should be able to correct the major areas of noncompliance
that contributed to its determination of needs intervention within one year from the date of this
determination letter, and other enforcement remedies under IDEA section 616(e)(2)(B) are not
appropriate at this time.
Therefore, the BIE must submit a CAP that ensures that it can meet, by the end of the fourth
quarterly reporting period for the 20 20 - 202 1 school year under Section C of the CAP, all of the
Specific Co nditions that will be imposed on its FFY 20 20 IDEA Part B grant award. For the
reasons explained in the BIE’s FFY 2020 Specific Conditions, the corrective action plan must
address the steps the BIE will take to: (1) issue fiscal monitoring reports, ensure timely
correction of findings of noncompliance identified in fiscal monitoring reports, and ensure
verification of correction of noncompliance for which no written findings are issued, in order to
ensure that BIE - operated schools and tribally - operated scho ols are ensuring the appropriate use
of Part B funds allocated under IDEA section 611(h)(1)(A); (2) demonstrate compliance with the
requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f) regarding public reporting of assessment data ; (3)
demonstrate compliance with the secondary transition requirements in IDEA section
614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b); (4) demonstrate how the
directed FFY 2019 and FFY 20 20 Part B administrative funds will be used to address
noncompliance with the secondary transition requirements and improve the accuracy of the
secondary transition data, and provide evidence of the use of those directed funds in accordance
with the corresponding spending plan s ; and (5) demonstrate completion of all of the required
actions d escribed in the CAP and in OSEP’s August 8, 2018 letter regarding the systemic
problems underlying the disruption of related services and timely initial evaluations in several
BIE - funded schools, including San Felipe Pueblo Elementary School.
In addition, as required above, the BIE must provide a report and analysis of the disaggregated
FFY 201 9 secondary transition compliance data, and must develop, implement, and report
progress on a spending plan to expend the FFY 20 20 directed funds by Ju ne 30 , 202 1 , that
demonstrates how the directed funds will be used in BIE - funded schools with high school
programs, to pay for strategies and activities that address the suspected or known reasons for the
noncompliance with the secondary transition requirements in IDE A section 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII)
and 34 C . F . R . §§ 300.320(b) and 300.321(b) and that are reasonably designed to correct that
noncompliance and improve the accuracy of the secondary transition data.
The BIE must also report on: (1) the sources from which it received technical assistance related
to those exiting data elements for which the BIE received a score of zero on the Part B Results
Matrix; and (2) the actions it took as a result of that technical assistance.
The BIE must submit its corrective action plan with its final quarterly progress report on Section
C of the CAP for the 201 9 - 20 20 school year, due on July 31, 20 20 , as well as quarterly progress
reports in accordance with the reporting and timeline requirements specified in the Specific
Conditions that OSEP will impose on the BIE’s FFY 20 20 IDEA Part B grant award.
As required by IDEA section 616(e)(7) and 34 C . F . R . § 300.606, the BIE must notify the public
that the Secretary of Education has taken the above enforcement actions, including, at a
Page 8 — Chief State School Officer
minimum, by posting a public notice on the Entity’s website and distributing the notice to the
media and through public agencies.
States and Ent ities were required to submit Phase III Year Four of the State Systemic
Improvement Plan ( SSIP ) by April 1 , 20 20 . OSEP appreciates the BIE ’s ongoing work on its
SSIP and its efforts to improve results for students with disabilities. We have carefully revie wed
and responded to your submission and will provide additional feedback in the upcoming weeks.
Additionally, OSEP will continue to work with BIE as it implements the fifth year of Phase III of
the SSIP, which is due on April 1, 20 21 .
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 201 8 SPP/APR. 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 substantia l intervention” in implementing Part B of
IDEA ;
(3) take appropriate enforcement action; and
(4) inform each school of its determination .
Further, the BIE must make its SPP/APR available to the public by posting it on your agency’s
website. Within the upcoming weeks , OSEP will be finalizing an Entity Profile that:
(1) includes the Entity’s determination letter and SPP/APR, OSEP attachments, and all Entity
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 BIE ’s efforts to improve results for children and youth with disabilities and
looks forward to working with the BIE ov er 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 if 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: Bureau of Indian Education Acting Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Bureau of Indian Education
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the puHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEA locateSame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under Title I FFY20132014201520162017Target >=53.12%53.12%53.12%53.12%55.12%Data53.12%74.16%65.82%51.49%63.06%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=57.12%57.12%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spec FS1510/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate419 SY 2017-18 Regulatory AdjustedRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table63.72%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a regular Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY Required ActioOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFY 201FFY20132014201520162017Target AOverall92.28%ActualNVRNVR96.89%71.96%90.74%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall96.00%96.00%MathA >=Overall96.00%96.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your final SPP/a. Children with IEPs726702675654612572661262387b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accoc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations674829291937245f. IEPs in alternate assesData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Data Grou6726466115707611623811b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations591579568528516432292035345f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards2828222731321514FFY GroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatingFFY 2FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber ofRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must mResults indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessGrade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXHistorical GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY2132014201520162017AOverall2018Target >=AOverall6.25%ActualNVRNVR20.69%11.46%NVRHistorical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOvAOverall4.32%ActualNVRNVR12.34%10.81%NVRTargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall6.50%6.50%MathA >=Overall4.30%4.35%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your final SPP/a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned69065462559c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient against grData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; Data Grou6225845675437611623811b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored at or abf. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at or above proficient GroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigneGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigneThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available to the pA. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and4.92%FFY20132014201520162017Target =Data40.00%0.00%75.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreem3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2nstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective GeneralSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/111SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/12.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Select yes if the dataTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PFFY20132014201520162017Target >=Data100.00%100.00%80.00%100.0%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.iStatusSlippage1010.00%100.00%N/AN/AProvide additional information about this indicator (opemic Improvement Plan ent.DC cati04/29/20 6:23:50 PM ED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Acrobat.DocumeState Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRAMSunProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the puHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEA locateSame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under Title I FFY20132014201520162017Target >=53.12%53.12%53.12%53.12%55.12%Data53.12%74.16%65.82%51.49%63.06%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=57.12%57.12%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spec FS1510/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate419 SY 2017-18 Regulatory AdjustedRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table63.72%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a regular Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY Required ActioOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFY 201FFY20132014201520162017Target AOverall92.28%ActualNVRNVR96.89%71.96%90.74%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall96.00%96.00%MathA >=Overall96.00%96.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your final SPP/a. Children with IEPs726702675654612572661262387b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accoc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations674829291937245f. IEPs in alternate assesData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Data Grou6726466115707611623811b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations591579568528516432292035345f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards2828222731321514FFY GroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatingFFY 2FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber ofRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must mResults indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessGrade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXHistorical GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY2132014201520162017AOverall2018Target >=AOverall6.25%ActualNVRNVR20.69%11.46%NVRHistorical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOvAOverall4.32%ActualNVRNVR12.34%10.81%NVRTargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall6.50%6.50%MathA >=Overall4.30%4.35%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your final SPP/a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned69065462559c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient against grData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; Data Grou6225845675437611623811b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored at or abf. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at or above proficient GroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigneGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigneThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available to the pA. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and4.92%FFY20132014201520162017Target =Data40.00%0.00%75.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreem3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2nstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective GeneralSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/11SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/111SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests11/12.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Select yes if the dataTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input BIE stakeholders are an integral part of State PFFY20132014201520162017Target >=Data100.00%100.00%80.00%100.0%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.iStatusSlippage1010.00%100.00%N/AN/AProvide additional information about this indicator (opemic Improvement Plan ent.DC cati04/29/20 6:23:50 PM ED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Acrobat.Docume
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determination (Entities)
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80674 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