2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Florida
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Florida
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 25 , 2020
Honorable Richard Corcoran
C ommissioner
Florida Department of Education
325 West Gaines Street
Tallahassee , Florida 32399
Dear Commissioner Corcoran :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination under section 616 of the Indi viduals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that Florida meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of the
IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and information, including
the Federal fis cal year (FFY) 2018 State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report
(SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and other publicly available information.
Your State’s 20 20 determination is based on the dat a reflected in the State’s “20 20 Part B
Results - Driven A ccountability 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 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 20 20 :
Part B ” (HTDMD).
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) is continuing to use both results data and
complian ce data in making determinations in 20 20 , as it did for Part B determinations in 201 4,
2015, 2016, 2017 , 2018 and 201 9 . (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 20 20 , 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 performance of CWD on the most recently administered (sc hool
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 access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/A PR 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 correction 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 “20 20 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 entitled “Dispute Resolution 201 8 - 20 1 9 ,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used to c alculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix .
As noted above, the State’s 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 RDA
Determination is Meets Requirement s if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%, unless the
Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part B
grant awards (for FFYs 201 7 , 201 8 , and 201 9 ), and those Speci fic Conditions are i n effect at the
time of the 20 2 0 determination.
States were required to submit Phase II I Year Four of the SSIP by April 1, 20 20 . 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 respon ded to your submission and will provide
additional feedback in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, OSEP will continue to work with your
State as it implement s the fifth year of Phase III of the SSIP , which is due on Ap ril 1 , 202 1 .
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
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, bu t no later than 120 days after
the State’s submission of its FFY 201 8 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 the 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 o n the SEA’s
website . 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 Reha bilitation 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 con tinue 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,
Lau rie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Florida
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 >=54.30%54.30%56.30%58.30%60.30%Data52.32%55.06%56.80%61.55%66.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=62.30%70.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In addition to the stakeholder input deDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation 10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma17,517 SY 20Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate22,630 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Adjust77.41%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)1 - Prior FFY RequiOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itFFY20132014201520162017Target =99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%AOverall94.00%Actu95.80%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall99.00%99.00%MathA >=Overall99.00%99.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In addition to the stakeholder input deFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your f37,52334,91935,47130,92431,25328,43726,89624,918b. IEPs in regular assessment wit10210811811116,86214,2408,5935,846f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternaData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; 30,65930,80628,97343,678b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations33,5410616,35613,7539,574f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards3,GroupGroup 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 available(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))Data Source3C. Same data as used for reporting to the D6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOverall2Actual28.98%24.91%18.52%23.98%24.59%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaselineTarget >=47.00%51.00%51.00%56.00%61.00%AOverall29.43%Actual32.09%29.43%24.30%29.52019ReadingA >=Overall66.00%66.5%MathA >=Overall66.00%66.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In addition to the stakeholder input dea. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned37c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient aData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; 36,83934,28134,77929,59029,65127,57740,206b. IEPs in regular assessment with no a323442323,0703,1561,775f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standardFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who reFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receiRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspen19.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target =85.00%85.00%Target B >=85.00%85.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Preschool Children Reported SeparatelyNumber of respondentStatusSlippagePreschool3,7994,56473.33%85.00%83.24%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippagePercentage of respondent parents10.83%Was 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 parenonate RepresentationInstructions and MeasurementMonitoriHistorical DataBaseline20050.00%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 reqNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findi00Correction 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 disproport00Correction 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%Data98.58%98.10%97.05%96.84%97.81%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evalFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7,96269,11397.81%100%97.39%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlipDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's 35350FFY 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%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%99.90%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 Using survey 5 (all year enrollment) and survey 2 (October enrollment) from the s6600FFY 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 Response12 - Required ActionsIndicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstructions and Measurem200982.30%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data88.77%90.55%90.38%94.84%90.40%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that containFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage54957490.40%100%95.64%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageWhProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findi555500FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings13 - 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 FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=2A27.00%Data28.35%28.63%28.48%27.84%24.30%B2009Target >=42.00%44.00%46.00%48.00%5042.14%43.67%43.18%43.84%50.55%C2009Target >=54.00%57.00%60.00%63.00%66.00%C50.00%58.76%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=39.00%41.00%Target B >=52.00%53.00%Target C >=69.00%72.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder input for Indicator 14 is i1. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year of2. 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 seconda4,55417,80024.30%39.00%25.58%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher Please select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same deWas a survey used? NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the respYESProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)14 - Prior FFY R The State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts thoPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Co108SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements100SelectTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The development of Florida's SPP is theFFY20132014201520162017Target >=55.00%72.50%73.00%74.00%74.50%Data59.09%70.59%79.66%29.63%97.22%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=75.00%75.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved thro3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusnstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EffectivSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ7SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints18Select yes iProvide an explanation belowThe data for mediation agreements not related to due FFY20132014201520162017Target >=66.20%68.20%70.20%72.20%74.20%Data52.17%55.56%60.53%66.67%72.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=75.00%75.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complainFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7224272.00%75.00%69.05%Did Not Meet TarThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts thaEmail: monica.verra-tirado@fldoe.orgPhone:8502450941Submitted on:04/30/20 3:47:055Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80688 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