2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Iowa
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Iowa
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 Ann Lebo
Director
Iowa Department of Education
Grimes State Office Building
400 East 14th Street
Des Moines , Iowa 50319
Dear Director Lebo :
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 Iowa needs assistance in implementing the requ irements 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 p ublicly 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 Mat rix 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 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:
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide ass essments;
(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 o f CWD 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 tha t 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 a ttachments:
(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 “Disp ute Resolution 2018 - 2019 ,” which includes 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 det ermination 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), if a State is det ermined 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 — Iowa
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT Provide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each Same data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) undeFFY20132014201520162017Target >=89.00%91.00%93.00%95.00%95.00%Data72.74%76.35%76.99%69.51%74.25%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual SourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate4,573 SY 2017-18 RegulatRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table76.51%FFY 2018 SPP/APRNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in iFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%EGrade 799.54%Actual97.90%97.78%97.57%97.95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.0%FGrade 899.53%Actual97.13%96.49%96.67%96.83%96.84%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.0%GHS97.61%Actual94.99%93.27%93.79%93.35%95.18%HistoGroup Name Baseline FFY2013214201520162017AGrade 32005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.098.85%Actual99.01%98.68%98.25%98.39%98.39%BGrade 42005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.0098.56%98.48%98.71%CGrade 5205Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%CGrade 599.DGrade 62005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%DGrade 699.10%Actual98.67%98.2005Target >=95.00%95.00%95.0%95.00%95.00%EGrade 799.42%Actual98.18%97.88%97.4695.00%95.00%95.00%FGrade 899.29%Actual96.98%96.60%96.61%96.82%96.75%95.00%GHS97.53%Actual94.97%92.45%93.47%TargetsupGrade 395.00%95.00%ReadingB >=Grade 495.00%95.0%ReadingC >=Grade 595.00%95.00%ReadingD >=Grade 695.00%95.0%ReadingE >=Grade 795.00%95.00%ReadingF >=Grade 895.00%95.0%ReadingG >=HS95.00%95.00%MathA >=Grade 395.00%95.00%MathB >=Grade 495.00%95.00%MathC >=Grade 595.00%95.00%MathD >=Grade 695.00%95.00%MathE >=Grade 795.00%95.00%MathF >=Grade 895.00%95.00%MathG >=HS95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your a. Children with IEPs5,2585,4375,7045,5605,2684,9183,650b. IEPs in regular assesc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations2,6342,9723,5233,8613,8563,8152Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185;5,7135,5935,2744,9403,651b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations2,23,5313,8863,8593,8382,879f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs Particip98.80%95.00%98.55%Met TargetNo SlippageCGrade 55,7045,64899.18%95.00%99.02%Met TEGrade 75,2685,18597.99%95.0%98.42%Met TargetNo SlippageFGrade 84,9184,80096.8495.18%95.00%95.48%Met TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGro5,20698.39%95.00%98.88%Met TargetNo SlippageBGrade 45,4445,36598.71%95.00%98.55%No SlippageDGrade 65,5935,49198.68%95.00%98.18%Met TargetNo SlippageEGrade 75,274,82396.75%95.00%97.63%Met TargetNo SlippageGHS3,6513,48894.53%95.00%95.54%Met Twww.iaschoolperformance.govhttps://educateiowa.gov/pk-12/special-education/specC. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above profGrade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAGrade 3XBGrade 4XCGrade 5XDGrade 6XEGrade 7XFGrade 8XGHSXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 324.72%Actual39.61%37.41%36.89%35.10%34.23%BGrade 42018Target >=100.00%100.00%10033.82%CGrade 52018Target >=10.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%CGrade 522.34%ActuTarget >=100.00%100.00%100.0%100.00%100.00%DGrade 622.03%Actual33.07%30.76%29.7EGrade 721.20%Actual30.45%30.82%28.40%29.00%28.24%FGrade 82018Target >=100.00%1030.05%27.27%26.27%26.96%26.05%GHS2018Target >=100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 3201AGrade 337.34%Actual53.43%48.06%48.63%43.92%43.03%BGrade 42018Target >=100.00%1033.12%Actual46.60%44.13%44.04%43.00%38.88%CGrade 52018Target >=100.00%100.00%10035.32%34.59%34.91%DGrade 62018Target >=100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%DGradeEGrade 72018Target >=100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%EGrade 724.35%Actual45.32018Target >=100.00%100.00%10.00%100.00%100.00%FGrade 822.94%Actual31.72%27.37%100.00%100.00%100.00%GHS13.33%Actual44.10%40.00%38.05%37.96%34.95%TargetsGroupGrReadingA >=Grade 3100.00%100.00%ReadingB >=Grade 4100.00%100.00%ReadingC >=Grade 5100.00%100.00%ReadingD >=Grade 6100.00%100.00%ReadingE >=Grade 7100.00%100.00%ReadingF >=Grade 8100.00%100.00%ReadingG >=HS100.00%100.00%MathA >=Grade 3100.00%100.00%MathB >=Grade 4100.00%100.00%MathC >=Grade 5100.00%100.00%MathD >=Grade 6100.00%100.00%MathE >=Grade 7100.00%100.00%MathF >=Grade 8100.00%100.00%MathG >=HS100.00%100.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned5c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175;5,6765,5235,2334,8733,541b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations sc867926869804350f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scoreGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency w33.82%100.00%26.56%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageCGrade 55,6481,26235.05%100.00%22.EGrade 75,1851,10028.24%100.0%21.22%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageFGrade 84,80092526.68%100.00%17.99%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippagAGrade 3The State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for thiBGrade 4The State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for fouCGrade 5The State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for fifDGrade 6The State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for sixEGrade 7The State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for sevFGrade 8The State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for eigGHSThe State attributes slippage of reading assessments performance for high schFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAGrade 35,2191,94943.03%100.00%37.34%DCGrade 55,6761,57034.91%100.0%27.66%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageDGrade 65,5231,440.06%100.00%24.35%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageFGrade 84,8731,11825.37%100.00%22.GroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableAGrade 3The State attributes slippage of math assessments performance for third The State attributes slippage of math assessments performance for fourth grade sDGrade 6The State attributes slippage of math assessments performance for sixth EGrade 7The State attributes slippage of math assessments performance for seventFGrade 8The State attributes slippage of math assessments performance for eighthGHSThe State attributes slippage of math assessments performance for high schoolRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)The State has set If the State has established a minimum n size requirement, the State may only inFFY20132014201520162017Target =40.00%41.00%42.00A38.54%Data35.78%34.36%33.73%33.58%32.61%B2011Target =45.00%45.00%Target B =62.00%63.00%64.00%65.00%66.00%A166.25%Data54.02%60.92%62.96%63.0355.00%56.00%57.00%58.00%59.0%A253.54%Data45.94%54.69%55.84%56.72%57.60%B12008Ta73.00%74.00%B173.97%Data68.52%68.42%72.11%71.77%70.83%B22008Target >=28.50%30.0034.92%Data24.46%29.44%32.01%32.23%37.21%C12008Target >=60.00%61.00%62.00%63.00%659.19%59.27%C22008Target >=62.00%63.00%64.00%65.00%66.00%C254.98%Data54.16%62.27TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=67.00%67.00%Target A2 >=60.0%60.00%Target B1 >=75.00%75.00%Target B2 >=36.00%36.00%Target C1 >=65.00%65.00%Target C2 >=67.00%67.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual Number of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improv1.82%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged ped. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improv1.43%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged ped. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improvb. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearerc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged ped. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectPartReasons for slippage, if applicableA1The State has recently emphasized profeA2The State attributes slippage in A2 to annual fluctuations in the data. B1The State attributes slippage in B1 to annual fluctuations in the data. B2The State attributes slippage in B2 to annual fluctuations in the data. C1The State attributes slippage in C1 to annual fluctuations in the data. C2The State attributes slippage in C2 to annual fluctuations in the data. Does the State include in the numerator and denominator only children who receivDid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary For 7 - OSEP Response The State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent cenHistorical DataBaseline FFY2132014201520162017Preschool2016Target >=85.00%85.00Preschool87.71%Data85.75%80.64%87.71%89.07%School age2016Target >=75.00%75.00%7573.99%76.13%84.92%85.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=85.00%91.00%Target B >=75.00%86.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Preschool Children Reported SeparatelyNumber of respondenStatusSlippagePreschool9351,2889.07%85.00%90.95%Met TargetNo SlippageSchool agePercentage of respondent parents7.16%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 demographicInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the demographics of the pare8 - Required ActionsIn the FFY 2019 SPP/APR, the State must report whether its FSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHistorical DataBaseline20160.31FFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%0.00%0.00%0.31%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size reNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Find0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corr9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepreseConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation oMonitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B / Child FindCompliance200587.31%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.68%98.86%99.30%99.28%99.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage12,70012,50799.00%100%98.48%Did Not Meet TargetNo SliProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Find12812800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Finding11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State musInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to selecFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data97.66%98.07%99.34%99.65%99.48%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and rec. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by td. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluatioe. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before theirf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention serviceNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3Data reported were generated from Iowa's Information Management System. The data6600FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Finding12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported 12 - Required ActionsIndicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstructions and Measure201661.69%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data85.21%87.56%94.74%61.69%63.86%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contaiFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,7765,73263.86%100%65.88%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its dIf yes, at what age are youth included in the data for this indicator14Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Find1,9781,97800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Finding13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State musEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have be14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2018Target >=A20.17%Data33.51%30.71%28.46%18.86%18.45%B2018Target >=62.00%64.00%66.00%68.00%759.15%58.57%53.94%60.55%55.17%C2018Target >=89.00%90.00%91.00%92.00%93.00%C66.5965.82%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=50.00%50.00%Target B >=72.00%72.00%Target C >=94.00%94.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary s2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leav3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or 4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year oNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in second8414,16918.45%50.00%20.17%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher edPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 2: Report in aligWas a survey used? NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the resYESProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)14 - Prior FFY The State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using data from FFY 2018,Prepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process 3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements3Select Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual FFY20132014201520162017Target >=Data25.00%50.00%75.00%80.00%66.67%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Num15 - Required ActionsIndicator 16: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitorPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation ReqSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req5SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Re2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints2Select yes iTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State developed the Part B Annual FFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%Data81.82%85.71%76.47%85.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=75.00%75.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaiStatusSlippage528100.00%75.0%87.50%Met TargetNo SlippageProvide additional infoemic Improvement Plan EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Submitted on:04/29/20 11:50:37 AM ED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80877 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