2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Connecticut
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Connecticut
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 Miguel Cardona
Commissioner of Education
Connecticut State Department of Education
450 Columbus Boulevard
Hartford , Connecticut 06103
Dear Commissioner Cardona :
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 Connecticut needs assistance in implementing t he 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/An nual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and other 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 Complia nce 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 Result s Score ; 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 — Connecticut
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary andHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEASame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under TFFY20132014201520162017Target >=65.00%67.60%70.30%72.90%75.60%Data64.72%65.16%65.56%65.21%66.71%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=78.20%78.20%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input regarding the setting oSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file sp10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate5,769 SY 2017-18 RegulatoryRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table64.95%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DaNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a rGraduation with a regular high school diploma is defined as receipt of Connecticut'MeasurementOPTION 1:States must report a percentage using the number of youth with FFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.BSAT95.00%Actual76.23%80.32%83.45%88.77%87.20%Historical Data: MathGroup Group Name2014201520162017ASB2005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%ASB98.70%Actual88.19%96.63%96.85%BSAT2005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%BSAT94.50%Actual76.06%79TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=SB95.00%95.00%ReadingB >=SAT95.00%95.00%MathA >=SB95.00%95.00%MathB >=SAT95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input regarding the setting oFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fina. Children with IEPs5,7556,1546,3836,5246,9086,6205,569b. IEPs in regular assessmec. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations1,1391,1551,1629821,0128273,050f. Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Da6,4466,5686,9366,6535,587b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations4,89632,6012,5812,5572,0833,054f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standardGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs Participati87.20%95.00%88.80%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math Assessm37,23496.85%95.00%96.43%Met TargetNo SlippageBSAT5,5874,95887.07%95.00%88.74%Did NoInteractive reports containing performance information (both participation and achiC. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficiGrade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSASBXXXXXXBSATXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017ASB2014Target >=16.98%17.50%18.00%18.50%ASB16.98%Actual33.82%16.98%18.18%17.91%18.25%BSAT2BSAT19.81%Actual33.96%19.81%25.30%26.44%23.54%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameASB2014Target >=11.88%12.00%12.50%13.00%ASB11.88%Actual41.35%11.88%13.43%14.67%14.58.65%9.00%9.50%10.00%BSAT8.65%Actual24.71%8.65%11.18%12.39%11.83%TargetsGroupGroup ReadingA >=SB19.00%19.50%ReadingB >=SAT21.50%22.00%MathA >=SB13.50%14.00%MathB >=SAT10.50%11.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input regarding the setting oFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fina. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned5,63c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agaData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; Da6,2666,3396,6536,2714,958b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations score76516424252f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at orGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was 23.54%21.50%22.59%Met TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupG14.57%13.50%14.66%Met TargetNo SlippageBSAT4,95854211.83%10.50%10.93%Met TargetNo SInteractive reports containing performance information (both participation and achiInclude State's definition of significant discrepancy.InstructionsIf the State haFFY20132014201520162017Target =87.50%87.50%87.50%87.75%88.00%Data87.73%88.07%81.28%87.55%85.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=88.25%85.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools faFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,3532,81485.92%88.25%83.62%Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and relIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, provide a copy of the survey.The demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics oIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future8 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data If the State has established a minimum n and/or cell size requirement, the State maFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requiNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groupProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Both areas of identif0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correct9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using dConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of rFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requiNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groupDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproportio0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using dataInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.21%99.33%99.27%99.11%99.58%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluaFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage17,00415,89699.58%100%93.48%Did Not Meet TargetSlippagePPursuant to Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) 10-76d-13, once a dis303000FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings o11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018, anPercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are frFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referc. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by theid. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation oe. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their thf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services bNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 whThe data used to report on this indicator represent the statewide data collected fr0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correct12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP Response12 - Required Actionsicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstrHistorical DataBaseline200977.80%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.71%99.92%99.93%99.87%99.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain eFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage15,56415,56899.92%100%99.97%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippaProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Finding8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings o13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must rEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been 14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=49.A46.30%Data49.12%49.73%46.66%51.34%86.40%B2009Target >=63.00%63.00%63.00%63.00%63.063.27%73.57%65.24%66.62%91.6%C2009Target >=77.00%77.00%77.00%77.00%77.00%C78.70%Da95.32%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=49.10%80.00%Target B >=63.10%85.00%Target C >=78.75%90.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input regarding the setting o1,9911. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or tra4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of lNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary1,7961,99186.40%49.10%90.21%Met TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher education orPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same defiWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are representIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future14 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and O15 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range not usedPrepopulatedSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Comp108SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements65Select yeTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input regarding the setting oFFY20132014201520162017Target >=45.00%45.00%45.00%45.00%45.00%Data45.07%50.00%30.43%55.29%57.14%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=45.10%52.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved throug3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlnstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective SourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequesSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reques54SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints96Select yes if Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input regarding the setting oFFY20132014201520162017Target >=68.00%68.00%68.00%68.00%68.00%Data68.63%68.68%68.77%63.33%61.88%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=68.70%68.70%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaintsStatusSlippage549622461.88%68.70%66.96%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide additiemic Improvement Plan EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Certi860-713-6911Submitted on:04/30/20 5:15:31 PM ED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Docume55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80680 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