2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Hawaii
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Hawaii
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 Christina Kishimoto
Superintendent
Hawaii Department of Education
P.O. Box 2360
Honolulu , Hawaii 96804
Dear Superintendent Kishimoto :
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 Hawaii needs assistance in implementing the re quirements 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 other 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 per formance 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 acce ss 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
http s://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 imp ortant 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 inc ludes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used 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 St ate’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 S pecific 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), if 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 f ollowing link: https://compcenternetwork.org/states . The Secretary directs the
State to determine the results elements and/or compliance 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 compliance 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 took 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 public 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 ha ve 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, 2 021 .
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 the 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 p erformance 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 on the SEA’s
web site. Within the upcoming weeks , OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that:
(1) includes the State’s determ ination 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 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 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 — Hawaii
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 LInstructionsSampling is not allowed.Describe the results of the State's examinatiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=82.00%84.00%85.00%87.00%88.00%Data61.45%59.31%60.37%59.49%65.29%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=9.00%83.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In December 2014, stakeholders from theSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file 10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate1,584 SY 2017-18 RegulatoRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table64.01%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Number of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with aIn accordance with Board Policy 102-15, High School Graduation Requirements and CMeasurementOPTION 1:States must report a percentage using the number of youth witFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AOverall96.45%94.76%95.83%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In December 2014, stakeholders from theFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEB. Participation rate for children with IEPsC. Proficiency rate for children withGrade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOveral57.00%AOverall11.93%Actual21.78%11.93%13.30%14.50%16.39%Historical Data: MathGrouAOverall2014Target >=64.00%64.00%41.00%46.00%51.00%AOverall9.94%Actual14.77%9.94%GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall61.00%61.00%MathA >=Overall56.00%56.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In December 2014, stakeholders from theFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who reGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableAOverallThe HIDOE has been experiencing teacher shortage and the most severe beingGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency waGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableAOverallThe HIDOE has been experiencing teacher shortage and the most severe being speciaProvide links to the page(s) where you provide public reports of assessment resulMeasurementPercent = [(# of districts that meet the State-established n size (if FFY20132014201520162017Target =3A38.00%Data33.67%31.45%35.87%36.34%35.17%B2009Target >=74.90%75.00%75.00%76.00%7774.90%68.15%83.37%85.04%85.69%C2009Target >=85.46%86.00%86.00%87.00%87.00%C77.00%93.05%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=40.00%40.00%Target B >=78.00%80.00%Target C >=88.00%90.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In December 2014, stakeholders from the3691. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year2. 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 seconda12636935.17%40.00%34.15%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageB. Enrolled in higher educatioPartReasons for slippage, if applicableAThe slippage represented in the data provided by the respondents for Indicator 14NOWas 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 represeProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)14 - Prior FFY Requ14 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Indicator 15: Resolution SSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range not usedPrepopulated DataSourceDateDeSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Co47SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process 3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements28Select Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In December 2014, stakeholders from theFFY20132014201520162017Target >=43.00%43.00%44.00%44.00%45.00%Data16.07%51.85%70.51%43.59%89.74%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=45.00%60.00%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 Requ2SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints2Select yes ifTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input In December 2014, stakeholders from theFFY20132014201520162017Target >=Data100.00%0.00%0.00%50.00%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complainStatusSlippage2250.00%80.00%N/AN/AProvide additional information about this indicemic Improvement Plan EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC CerSubmitted on:04/29/20 1:20:46 PM ED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80716 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