2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Kansas
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Kansas
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 Randy Watson
Commi ssioner of Education
Kansas State Department of Education
900 Southwest Jackson Street
Topeka , Kansas 66612
Dear Commissioner Watson :
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 Kansas 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 fiscal 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 - Drive n 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 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 — Kansas
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 >=80.00%81.00%82.00%83.00%84.00%Data77.77%76.71%77.29%77.52%78.37%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=85.75%85.75%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As a result of multiple meetings,SourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file 10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate4,759 SY 2017-18 RegulatoRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table80.02%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Number 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 =Overall98.34%98.34%MathA >=Overall98.33%98.33%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Over the past year, numerous meetings hFFY 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, LEA. Indicator 3A ReservedB. Participation rate for children with IEPsC. Proficie 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOvera16.96%18.56%AOverall15.36%Actual15.36%15.39%14.20%13.63%Historical Data: MathGrouAOverall2014Target >=10.85%1.85%11.75%12.65%AOverall10.85%Actual10.85%11.61%11.3GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall20.74%20.74%MathA >=Overall14.47%14.47%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Over the past year, numerous meetings hFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receiRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEMonitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults Indicator: Rates of suspension and ex20160.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target =3A48.60%Data33.33%36.43%28.25%42.67%32.32%B2009Target >=60.60%61.60%63.20%65.60%6960.61%63.93%54.25%62.21%56.1%C2009Target >=73.59%74.59%76.59%79.09%81.09%C83.20%75.00%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=48.65%48.65%Target B >=72.65%72.65%Target C >=83.30%83.30%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input As a result of multiple meetings, broad1. 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 seconda9531932.32%48.65%29.78%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageB. Enrolled in higher educationPartReasons for slippage, if applicableAAn examination of state-level data for the indicator suggests the slippage may beYESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and rIf 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 Requ SessionsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring PrioritySourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process CoSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Co3Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'As a result of multiple meetings, broad representative stakeholders provided inpuFFY20132014201520162017Target >=37.00% - 40.00%37.0% - 40.00%37.00% - 40.00%37.00% - 40.00%37.00% - 40.Data40.00%50.00%60.00%75.00%55.56%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target37.00%40.00%37.00%40.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlemeMet TargetNo SlippageProvide additional information about this indicator (optionaPercent = (2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1) times 100.InstructionsSampling SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ11SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Re2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints3SY 2018-19 EMAPS 11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints7Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'sFFY20132014201520162017Target >=76.94% - 76.94%70.0% - 80.00%70.00% - 80.00%70.00% - 80.00%70.00% - 80.Data75.00%80.00%70.00%87.50%76.19%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target77.00%80.00%77.00%80.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complain16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets fName and title of the individual certifying the accuracy of the State's submissio 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80879 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