2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Kentucky
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Kentucky
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 Kevin C. Brown
Int erim Commissioner of Education
Kentucky Department of Education
300 Sower Boulevard, Office 531
Frankfort , Kentucky 40601
Dear Interim Commissioner Brown :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination unde r section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that Kentucky 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 - 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 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
compliance data in making determinat ions 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
determinati ons 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 (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 access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/APR and other relevant data
by acc essing 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 fi nd , 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
languag e 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 OS EP 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 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 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 RD A
Determination is Meets Requirements 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 20 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. W e 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 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, but 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 pe rformance 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 ac tion; 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
website . Within the upcoming weeks , OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that:
(1) includes the State’s determinatio n 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 imp rove 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 — Kentucky
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PRProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary anHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LESame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under FFY20132014201520162017Target >=74.30%76.90%79.60%79.60%79.60%Data74.27%70.75%65.99%71.89%74.42%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=79.60%79.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file s10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate4,469 SY 2017-18 RegulatorRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table74.83%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequirOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itsFFY20132014201520162017Target =99.00%99.00%99.00%9Grade 499.77%Actual99.77%99.99%99.96%99.90%99.72%CGrade 52013Target >=99.00%99.00%Grade 599.70%Actual99.70%99.94%99.98%99.77%99.67%DGrade 62013Target >=99.00%99.00%DGrade 699.66%Actual99.66%99.89%99.93%99.73%99.71%EGrade 72013Target >=99.00%99.00EGrade 799.69%Actual99.69%99.91%99.87%99.76%99.34%FGrade 82013Target >=99.00%99.00FGrade 899.64%Actual99.64%99.79%99.82%99.61%99.35%GHS2013Target >=98.00%98.00%98.0GHS98.58%Actual98.58%98.32%99.06%98.27%95.42%Historical Data: MathGroup Group Name2014201520162017AGrade 32013Target >=99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%AGrade 399.81%A99.72%99.62%BGrade 42013Target >=99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%BGrade 499.77%ActuaCGrade 52013Target >=99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%CGrade 599.69%Actual99.69%99.9499.00%99.00%99.00%99.00%99.0%DGrade 699.64%Actual99.64%99.89%99.95%99.63%99.65%EG99.00%EGrade 799.63%Actual99.63%99.91%99.88%99.68%99.31%FGrade 82013Target e"99.0Grade 899.60%Actual99.60%99.79%99.82%99.60%99.32%GHS2013Target >=98.0Actual98.18%98.44%99.04%97.84%95.71%Targetse20182019Grade 399.00%99.00%ReadingB >=Grade 499.00%99.0%ReadingC >=Grade 599.00%99.00%ReadingD >=Grade 699.00%99.0%ReadingE >=Grade 799.00%99.00%ReadingF >=Grade 899.00%99.0%ReadingG >=HS98.00%98.00%MathA >=Grade 399.00%99.00%MathB >=Grade 499.00%99.00%MathC >=Grade 599.00%99.00%MathD >=Grade 699.00%99.00%MathE >=Grade 799.00%99.00%MathF >=Grade 899.00%99.00%MathG >=HS98.00%98.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs8,2128,777,6827,0016,3195,7314,438b. IEPs in regular assessmc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations4,7135,1685,2884,9324,4994,0992,5Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; D7,6867,0036,3225,7314,444b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations3,0135,2904,9314,4994,1022,572f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standarGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs Participat99.72%99.00%99.70%Met TargetNo SlippageCGrade 57,6827,65799.67%99.00%99.67%Met TarEGrade 76,3196,27299.34%99.0%99.26%Met TargetNo SlippageFGrade 85,7315,69499.35%995.42%98.00%95.43%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math Assess8,18499.62%99.00%99.66%Met TargetNo SlippageBGrade 48,0788,05299.72%99.00%99.68%MeNo SlippageDGrade 67,0036,96999.65%99.00%99.51%Met TargetNo SlippageEGrade 76,32265,69699.32%99.00%99.39%Met TargetNo SlippageGHS4,4444,24695.71%98.00%95.54%Did Nothttps://education.ky.gov/specialed/excep/IDEA/Pages/Public-Reporting-of-IDEA-B-DatC. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficGrade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAGrade 3XBGrade 4XCGrade 5XDGrade 6XEGrade 7XFGrade 8XGHSXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 32035.28%Actual35.28%34.38%36.0%38.87%36.14%BGrade 42013Target >=41.40%48.80%56.10%634.91%CGrade 52013Target >=41.40%48.80%56.10%63.40%70.70%CGrade 531.53%Actual31.53Target >=33.50%41.80%50.10%58.50%66.80%DGrade 623.63%Actual23.63%23.55%25.20%31.54EGrade 724.70%Actual24.70%21.29%25.31%24.53%23.54%FGrade 82013Target >=33.50%41.8018.98%18.33%20.39%22.95%24.68%GHS2013Target >=29.00%37.90%45.80%55.70%63.70%GHS15.Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 32013TAGrade 326.22%Actual26.22%25.95%27.20%31.11%28.45%BGrade 42013Target >=35.90%43.9027.95%Actual27.95%24.82%29.29%28.08%28.19%CGrade 52013Target >=35.90%43.90%51.90%628.20%27.16%27.35%DGrade 62013Target >=32.10%40.60%49.10%57.60%66.10%DGrade 619.36EGrade 72013Target >=32.10%4.60%49.10%57.60%66.10%EGrade 717.29%Actual17.29%14.512013Target >=32.10%40.60%49.10%57.60%66.10%FGrade 815.41%Actual15.41%14.93%15.51%146.10%55.60%63.60%GHS12.70%Actual12.70%13.92%14.41%12.67%8.78%TargetsGroupGroup NaReadingA >=Grade 378.00%78.00%ReadingB >=Grade 478.00%78.0%ReadingC >=Grade 578.00%78.00%ReadingD >=Grade 675.10%75.1%ReadingE >=Grade 775.10%75.10%ReadingF >=Grade 875.10%75.1%ReadingG >=HS71.70%71.70%MathA >=Grade 376.00%76.00%MathB >=Grade 476.00%76.00%MathC >=Grade 576.00%76.00%MathD >=Grade 674.60%74.60%MathE >=Grade 774.60%74.60%MathF >=Grade 874.60%74.60%MathG >=HS71.60%71.60%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned8,1c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; D7,6616,9696,2745,6964,246b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scor1,284864737585182f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scoreGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was34.91%78.00%34.63%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageCGrade 57,6572,55934.78%78.00%33.4EGrade 76,2721,53323.54%75.1%24.44%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 85,6941,415.37%71.70%17.33%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippagAGrade 3Reading assessment proficiency data for students in third grade with an InCGrade 5Reading assessment participation data for students in fifth grade with an FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAGrade 38,1842,30828.45%76.00%28.20%Did CGrade 57,6612,07227.35%76.0%27.05%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageDGrade 66,9691,418.41%74.60%18.54%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 85,69693416.26%74.60%16.40%Regulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEAMonitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults Indicator: Rates of suspension and exp20097.39%FFY20132014201520162017Target =39.85%39.90%339.85%Data39.85%38.57%36.67%36.31%45.49%C12013Target >=50.67%50.70%50.70%51.50%51.33.49%55.10%C22013Target >=35.67%35.70%35.70%36.50%36.50%C235.67%Data35.67%23.37%2TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=50.50%50.50%Target A2 >=40.5%40.50%Target B1 >=68.50%68.50%Target B2 >=41.00%41.00%Target C1 >=52.00%52.00%Target C2 >=37.00%37.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve 4.91%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move neac. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peerd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to samee. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-ageNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve 2.59%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move neac. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peerd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to samee. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-ageNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer tc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peerd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to samee. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-ageNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatPartReasons for slippage, if applicableA1For FFY18, Summary Statement one, the perB1For FFY18, Summary Statement 1, the percentage of students who made significant Does the State include in the numerator and denominator only children who receivedDid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form None 7 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, Include the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the parentTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionFFY20132014201520162017Target >=80.45%80.55%80.65%8.75%80.85%Data80.45%85.12%86.76%87.88%88.94%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=80.95%80.95%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools fFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage4,3614,85188.94%80.95%89.90Was 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 demographics If no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futur8 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHistorical DataBaseFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%0.57%1.14%0.57%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size requNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findin0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correc9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of FFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data2.29%0.00%2.29%2.86%7.43%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size requNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproporti171520FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Ve10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported lePercent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are from State monitoFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.29%99.45%99.74%99.76%99.43%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,3022,30099.43%100%99.91%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippagDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's m141400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseThe State did not demonstrate that the LEA corrected the findings of noncompliancePercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are fFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.62%99.29%99.81%99.91%99.41%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and refec. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by thed. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their tf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services Numerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 wThe KDE collected data from LEAs using the end-of-year Preschool Program Performan141400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported le12 - Required ActionsIndicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstructions and Measureme200992.95%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.98%99.19%98.41%97.37%99.40%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage2,1102,24699.40%100%93.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippagePrNOProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of FindFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected111100FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veFor FFY 2017, the KDE reviewed the statewide student information system known as I13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must Enrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2018Target >=25A16.98%Data18.75%18.43%18.02%18.09%17.96%B2018Target >=55.00%55.20%55.40%55.60%55.59.49%58.17%60.94%59.39%59.51%C2018Target >=65.70%65.90%66.10%66.30%66.50%C69.76%D69.49%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=25.50%25.50%Target B >=56.00%56.00%Target C >=66.70%69.96%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionFFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary sch2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leavin3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or tr4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of Number of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondar4212,48017.96%25.50%16.98%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher educPartReasons for slippage, if applicableBSlippage is solely due to the new measure of competitive employment. Using last yeNOWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the surveyKentucky FFY2018 Indicator 14 surveyInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are represenIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futurThe State revised its targets for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those targets.15 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulatedSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com26SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements9Select yeTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State Advisory Council for ExceptionFFY20132014201520162017Target >=70.00% - 80.00%Data33.33%16.67%44.44%82.35%45.45%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target70.00%80.00%70.00%80.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlemenProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)15 - Prior FFY RequiStates may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75-85%).If the data reported inSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque9SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints6SY 2018-19 EMAPS I11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints3Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's FFY20132014201520162017Target >=61.00% - 85.00%Data75.00%85.71%40.00%37.50%66.67%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target61.00%85.00%61.00%85.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaint16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported fewer thanName and title of the individual certifying the accuracy of the State's submissionay
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80881 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