2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Colorado
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Colorado
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 Katy Anthes, Ph.D.
Commissioner of Education
Colorado Department of Education
201 East Colfax Avenue
Denver , Colorado 80203
Dear Commissioner Anthes :
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 Colorado needs assistance in implementing the requirements 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/Annual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and oth er publicly available
information.
Your State’s 2020 determination 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 Result s Elements ;
(3) a Compliance Score and a Results Score ;
(4) an RDA Percentage based on both the Compliance Score and the Results Score ; and
(5) the State’s Determination.
The RDA Matrix is further explained in a document, entitled “How the Department Made
Determinati ons 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 HT DMD 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:
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments;
(2) the participation and pe rformance 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 CWD who drop ped out.
You may acc ess 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, yo u 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 correction of findings of noncomplianc e 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 incl ude
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,” whic h 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 used to calculate the State’s “Time ly 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 Assistance 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.
The State’s determination for 2019 was also Needs Assistance. In accordance with section
616(e)(1) of the IDEA and 34 C.F.R. § 300.604(a), i f a State is determined to need assistance for
two consecutive years, the Secretary must take one or mo re of the following actions:
(1) advise the State of available sources of technical assistance that may help the State
address the areas in which the State needs assistance and require the State to work with
appropriate entities;
(2) direct the use of State - level funds on the area or areas i n which the State needs assistance;
or
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
(3) identify the State as a high - risk grantee and impose Special Conditions on the State’s
IDEA Part B grant award.
Pursuant to these requirements, the Secretary is advising the State of available sources of
technical as sistance, including OSEP - funded technical assistance centers and resources at the
following website: https://osep.grads360.org/#program/highlighted - resources , and requiring the
State to work with appropriate entities. In addition, the State 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 Secretary directs the
State to determine the results elements and/or comp liance indicators, and improvement
strategies, on which it will focus its use of available technical assistance, in order to improve its
performance. We strongly encourage the State to access technical assistance related to those
results elements and compl iance indicators for which the State received a score of zero. Your
State must report with its FFY 2019 SPP/APR submission, due February 1, 2021, on:
(1) the technical assistance sources from which the State received assistance; and
(2) the actions the State too k as a result of that technical assistance.
As required by IDEA section 616(e)(7) and 34 C . F . R . § 300.606, your State must notify the
public that the Secretary of Education has taken the above enforcement actions, including, at a
minimum, by posting a publ ic notice on its website and distributing the notice to the media and
through public agencies.
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 Pha se 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 State educational
agency’s (SEA’s) website , the performance of each local educational agency (LEA) located in
the State on t he targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, but no later than 120 days after
the State’s submission of its FFY 2018 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(1) review LEA performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
(2) determine if each LEA “meets t he requirements” of Part B, or “needs assistance,” “needs
intervention,” or “needs substantial intervention” in implementing Part B of the IDEA ;
(3) take appropriate enforcement action; and
(4) inform each LEA of its determination.
Further, your State must make its SPP/APR available to the public by posting 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.
Page 4 — Chief State School Officer
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve re sults 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 your
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 — Colorado
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PRProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary anHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEResults indicator: Percent of youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) FFY20132014201520162017Target >=80.00%80.00%80.00%73.40%75.00%Data53.80%54.63%53.78%57.24%75.43%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=76.60%78.20%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Colorado's Stakeholder Consultation and DateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation R10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma4,466 SY 2017Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate6,025 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Adjusted74.12%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a Provide a narrative that describes the conditions youth must meet in order to gradOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itsFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AOverall99.40%A87.75%89.37%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Colorado's Stakeholder Consultation and FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fi8,2598,6558,8638,1947,7827,2965,580b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommoda3,0143,5693,8383,5183,2852,9463,498f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternaData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; D8,1907,7827,2945,580b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations3,9383,7853,5323,2882,9793,498f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards550GroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available (20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))Data Source3C. Same data as used for reporting to the De7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: ReadiGroupGroup NameBaseline FFY2132014201520162017AOverall2011Target >=28.86%33.86%3310.49%8.50%9.02%9.97%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201530.95%30.95%30.95%AOverall19.95%Actual19.50%8.02%6.92%7.11%7.38%TargetsGroupGroup ReadingA >=Overall33.86%33.86%MathA >=Overall30.95%30.95%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input During 2010-2011, examination of trend dFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fi7,4987,9158,0797,3516,8806,2184,661b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodac. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; D8,1007,3636,8916,2114,659b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scor16496107129221f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored aGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency wasGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency wasThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))Data SourceState discipline data, including FFY20132014201520162017Target =52.00%52.00%54.00%56.00%58.00%Data57.32%62.80%65.29%66.06%71.37%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=60.00%60.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools fFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,1911,53171.37%60.00%77.79Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NDescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics If no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futur8 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of FFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of FindinCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correc9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of FFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproportiCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: Child FindInstructions and MInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.83%97.90%97.91%98.00%98.03%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage22,37322,01398.03%100%98.39%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findin322606FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedCDE has determined that 1 AU's noncomp11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseThe State did not demonstrate that the LEA corrected the findings of noncompliancePercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are fFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data98.23%97.16%97.01%96.89%98.25%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and refec. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by thed. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their tf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services Numerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 wData for Indicator 12 are reported by every AU through the online Special Educatio121101FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedThe CDE has determined that 1 AU's non12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseThe State did not demonstrate12 - Required ActionsOSEP notes that the State described one AU as having longstan201793.18%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data92.41%70.94%93.45%100.00%93.18%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage37942493.18%100%89.39%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvidYESIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its If yes, at what age are youth included in the data for this indicator15Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)Colorado changed the131201FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedThe CDE Secondary Transition and Monit13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2017, aEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2014Target >=32A24.62%Data27.18%24.62%25.63%26.10%27.10%B2014Target >=61.00%61.00%61.00%61.25%61.74.21%56.43%60.44%61.85%68.7%C2014Target >=69.00%69.00%69.00%69.25%69.25%C73.60%D79.60%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=33.00%27.70%Target B >=61.50%56.50%Target C >=69.50%81.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Indicator 14 data was presented to stakeNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in e2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leavin3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or tr4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of Number of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondar5422,04627.10%33.00%26.49%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher educPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same defIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the samplingIf 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 represenIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futurThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2014, aStates are not required to report data at the LEA level.15 - Indicator DataSelect SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com11SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements6Select yeTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Targets were re-established and extendedFFY20132014201520162017Target >=48.00%49.00%50.00%51.00%52.00%Data60.00%83.33%50.00%62.50%54.55%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=53.00%53.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved throu3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSnstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EffectiveSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequeSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque9SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints16Select yes ifTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Targets were re-established and extendedFFY20132014201520162017Target >=60.00%60.00%61.00%62.00%63.00%Data62.86%60.00%72.73%65.52%62.96%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=64.00%64.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaintStatusSlippage9164662.96%64.0%54.35%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvide reasons fo16 - Required ActionsIndicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan EMBED AcrobatTitle: Executive Director of Exceptional Student Services / State Director of Spec 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80678 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