2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Maryland
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Maryland
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 Karen B. Salmon
State Superintendent of Schools
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street, 7th floor
Baltimore , Maryland 21201
Dear Superintendent Salmon :
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 Maryland needs assista nce in implementing the requirements 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 Stat e - 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 practicab le, 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 performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
(2) determine if each LEA “meets the requirements” of Part B, or “needs assistan ce,” “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 determination 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 nex t 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.
Si ncerely,
Laurie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Maryland
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 LEResults indicator: Percent of youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) FFY20132014201520162017Target >=59.19%61.43%63.67%65.91%68.14%Data60.03%63.45%63.93%66.86%67.48%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=7.38%72.62%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The data provided for Indicator 1 of theDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation R10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma4,158 SY 2017Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate6,221 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Adjusted66.84%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber 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 =Overall95.00%97.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input No changes to baselines are being proposFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fi8,3558,6958,9668,5218,2827,7165,341b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommoda5,9926,8667,3136,9796,7366,2634,167f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternaData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; D8,5208,2837,7135,414b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations1,203861647,1056,8596,3313,905f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards620GroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNThe 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 De6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAGrade 3XBGrade 4XCGrade 5XDGrade 6XEGrade 7XFGrade 8XGHSXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 3215.34%16.60%18.60%21.33%AGrade 315.34%Actual55.83%15.34%11.18%12.04%11.23%BGrade 4BGrade 414.37%Actual61.28%14.37%9.90%9.98%11.36%CGrade 52014Target >=72.80%11.87%29.15%8.81%8.68%DGrade 62014Target >=72.80%11.40%24.10%26.10%28.83%DGrade 611.40%AcGrade 72014Target >=72.80%13.40%26.60%28.60%31.33%EGrade 713.40%Actual42.51%13.40%31.10%33.83%FGrade 812.25%Actual38.52%12.25%7.14%7.20%8.31%GHS2014Target >=72.80%550.50%Actual46.39%50.50%31.61%13.47%15.60%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBasTarget >=67.40%16.11%16.20%16.50%18.58%AGrade 316.11%Actual44.11%16.11%15.35%16.4716.15%18.23%BGrade 412.26%Actual48.98%12.26%10.83%11.30%12.89%CGrade 52014Target >CGrade 510.79%Actual36.81%10.79%10.18%9.87%10.68%DGrade 62014Target >=67.40%11.17%Actual32.35%11.17%7.64%8.04%8.84%EGrade 72014Target >=67.40%12.29%20.50%22.25%24.38.02%9.15%FGrade 82014Target >=67.40%11.51%22.20%23.95%26.03%FGrade 811.51%Actual2GHS2014Target >=67.40%56.06%56.07%56.08%56.09%GHS56.06%Actual46.25%56.06%43.41%30.GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Grade 323.39%25.45%ReadingB >=Grade 425.89%27.95%ReadingC >=Grade 528.39%30.45%ReadingD >=Grade 630.89%32.95%ReadingE >=Grade 733.39%35.45%ReadingF >=Grade 835.89%37.95%ReadingG >=HS50.54%50.55%MathA >=Grade 320.71%22.84%MathB >=Grade 420.36%22.49%MathC >=Grade 523.06%25.19%MathD >=Grade 624.76%26.89%MathE >=Grade 726.46%28.59%MathF >=Grade 828.16%30.29%MathG >=HS56.10%56.11%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input No changes to baselines are being proposFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fi8,2858,6398,9028,4258,1517,5515,221b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodac. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; D8,8938,4138,1377,5345,221b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scor471240327283230f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored GroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was11.36%25.89%10.20%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageCGrade 58,9028488.68%28.39%9.53%Did NEGrade 78,15192010.54%33.39%11.29%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 87,5517248.15.60%50.54%20.57%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippagBGrade 4There was slippage seen in grade 4 reading (from 11.36% proficient in 2017DGrade 6There are several factors that may have contributed to this slippage. Of MFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAGrade 38,2991,20314.97%20.71%14.50%Did CGrade 58,89392710.68%23.06%10.42%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageDGrade 68,4136638.9.15%26.46%9.38%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 87,53475510.02%28.16%10.02%DiGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableDGrade 6There are several factors that may have contributed to this slippage. Of MRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))Data SourceState discipline data, including FFY20132014201520162017Target =66.40%67.80%68.00%68.00%565.39%62.20%62.47%56.35%52.75%B12017Target >=66.00%67.40%67.60%67.60%72.12%B172.12B22017Target >=55.70%57.10%57.20%57.20%50.87%B250.87%Data54.49%50.10%50.01%51.56%561.50%62.90%63.10%63.10%71.4%C171.40%Data60.86%61.13%66.70%69.00%71.40%C22017TargC259.23%Data63.42%61.30%62.81%63.89%59.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=68.78%68.78%Target A2 >=53.00%53.00%Target B1 >=72.37%72.37%Target B2 >=51.12%51.12%Target C1 >=71.65%71.65%Target C2 >=59.48%59.48%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input No changes to baselines are being proposNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve 1.54%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 1.31%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 expectatYESWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) ChilThe State uses the Child Outcomes Summary (COS) Process which has been integrated Samplingof parents from whom response is requestedis allowed. When sampling is uIf yes, will you be providing the data for preschool children separately?YESTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input During the FFY 2016-2017 performance perBaseline FFY20132014201520162017Preschool2016Target >=47.00%48.00%83.00%84.00%Pres47.01%50.02%82.99%80.98%School age2016Target >=39.00%40.00%70.00%71.00%School age7TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=85.00%85.00%Target B >=72.00%72.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Preschool Children Reported SeparatelyNumber of respondent StatusSlippagePreschool1,4971,82580.98%85.00%82.03%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageSPercentage of respondent parents10.55%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 demographics If no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futurThe MSDE, DEI/SES's data are not wholly representative of the students served. TheProvide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as notedFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 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 Response 9 - Required Actionsicator 10: Disproportionate RepreseConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of 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 requNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproporti0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: Child FindInstructions and MInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.46%98.14%97.94%98.00%98.60%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage21,22320,93498.60%100%98.64%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findin161600FFY 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 ResponseBecause the State reported le11 - Required ActionsIndicator 12: Early Childhood TransitionInstructions and MeaInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select FFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.47%99.02%99.69%99.72%100.00%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 MSDE uses an electronic data extract from Maryland's SSIS data system which is0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correc12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFYHistorical DataBaseline200986.10%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.96%99.66%98.49%98.86%97.86%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage18,09119,53297.86%100%92.62%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageYESIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its If no, please explainThe State is responding to the requirements of the IDEA as spFindings of Noncompliance Subsequently CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corre00FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implFFY 2016110FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veri13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported leInstructionsSamplingof youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary schooliMeasure A: For purposes of reporting on the measures/indicators, please note that Target >=23.00%23.00%24.00%25.00%26.00%A22.66%Data26.78%23.90%23.45%22.66%26.46%B251.00%52.00%B58.09%Data50.95%49.18%54.63%58.09%65.07%C2016Target >=55.00%55.08%56.72.93%Data55.07%56.32%61.47%72.93%76.93%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=27.00%28.00%Target B >=53.00%60.00%Target C >=59.00%74.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The working sub-committee of the Seconda6,3771. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one yea2. 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 secondar1,7886,37726.46%27.00%28.04%Met TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher education oPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 2: Report in alignmWas a survey used? NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the respoNOIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futResponse to actions required in FFY 2017 SPP/APR 14 - OSEP ResponseThe State has r15 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulatedSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com96SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements53Select yTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input No changes to baselines are being proposFFY20132014201520162017Target >=64.00% - 75.00%64.0% - 75.00%64.00% - 75.00%64.00% - 75.00%64.00% - 75.0Data58.11%60.56%54.24%52.27%58.46%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target64.00%75.00%64.00%75.00%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 Reque166SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Re2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints69SY 2018-19 EMAPS 11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints48Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's FFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00% - 85.00%75.0% - 85.00%75.00% - 85.00%75.00% - 85.00%75.00% - 85.0Data70.15%81.40%75.44%69.33%65.22%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target75.00%85.00%75.00%85.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaint16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target fMarcella FranczkowskiTitle: Assistant State SuperintendentEmail: marcella.franczko55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80887 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