2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Massachusetts
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Massachusetts
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 Jeffrey C. Riley
C ommissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street
Malden , Massachussetts 02148
Dear Commissioner Riley :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Depa rtment) 2020
determination under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that Massachussetts 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 re sults data and
compliance 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 M atrix 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 re cently 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 revie w 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 that the State is required to take are in two places:
(1) actions relate d 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 I ntroduction 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 sprea dsheet 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 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 Requ irements. A State’s 20 20 RDA
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 st udents
with disabilities. We 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 S SIP , 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 — Massachusetts
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEA Results indicator: Percent of youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) grFFY20132014201520162017Target >=80.00%82.00%84.00%86.00%88.00%Data67.80%69.10%69.90%71.79%72.83%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=72.36%73.36%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input MA DESE works closely with stakeholders onSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spe10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate14,571 SY 2017-18 RegulatoryRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table72.36%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DatNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a reProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)*Note: the targets forOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFFY20132014201520162017Target =Overall99.00%99.00%MathA >=Overall99.00%99.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input MA DESE works closely with stakeholders onFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your finaa. Children with IEPs13,83514,58614,93514,77014,53213,83912,647b. IEPs in regular asc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations8,73110,71811,27711,49211,11210,542Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Dat14,93914,77114,52813,84212,592b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations3,11,90911,91011,60910,9449,798f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatinFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available to(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))Data Source3C. Same data as used for reporting to the Depa 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOverall2018Actual30.79%31.73%33.73%19.68%21.35%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFTarget >=50.00%60.00%AOverall15.31%Actual22.48%22.71%24.71%17.39%17.36%TargetsGroupG2019ReadingA >=Overall20.00%MathA >=Overall19.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input MA DESE works closely with stakeholders ona. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned13,67c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agaiData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; Dat13,72014,44514,81514,58014,32513,57112,096b. IEPs in regular assessment with no acco1,3701,7111,5991,6341,3681,191,777f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternateFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receiFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivedRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensio1.92%FFY20132014201520162017Target =85.00%85.00%85.00%85.50%86.00%Data79.85%84.98%81.01%82.94%80.82%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=86.50%89.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools facFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,2053,60180.82%86.50%89.00%MWas sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?YESIf yes, provide sampling plan.Indicator 8_Letter amending data collection and reportDescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, provide a copy of the survey.Special_Education_Parent_Survey-English _BostonThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics ofIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future Some of the actions MA DESE is taking to support greater representatives of data areIf the State has established a minimum n and/or cell size requirement, the State mayFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requirNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groupsProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings00Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings ofFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correcte9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentatConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of raFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requirNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groupsDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproportionCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings ofFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: Child FindInstructions and MeaInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.89%99.29%95.26%95.83%96.50%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluatFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,2641,15996.50%100%91.69%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvThe State's timeline for initial evaluations is 45 school working days. See 603 CMR 323200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP Response Because the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must rPercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are froFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%99.17%92.12%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and reb. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was c. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by theird. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation ore. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their thif. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services beNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 whoState monitoringDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from5500FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less12 - Required Actions12 - State AttachmentsBED Acrobat.Document.DC Indicator 201797.09%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.46%100.00%100.00%99.8%97.09%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain eaFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,5121,55997.09%100%96.99%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageWIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its data If yes, at what age are youth included in the data for this indicator14Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)FFY 2017 set a new bas222200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must reEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been e14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2017Target >=45.0A50.00%Data42.05%48.94%53.83%49.64%50.00%B2017Target >=80.00%82.00%84.00%86.00%88.0077.00%82.00%81.31%83.13%79.37%C2017Target >=87.00%89.00%91.00%93.00%95.00%C87.09%Dat87.09%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=50.20%50.40%Target B >=79.60%79.80%Target C >=87.30%87.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input MA DESE works closely with stakeholders on1,0201. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year 2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving 3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or trai4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of leNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary 4201,02050.00%50.20%41.18%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageB. Enrolled in higher educationPartReasons for slippage, if applicableAMA DESE and its stakeholders are concerned that the engagement rates reported for FFCMA DESE and its stakeholders are concerned that the engagement rates reported for FPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same definIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the surveyFFY2018 Indicator 14 SurveyInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are representaIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future The State revised its targets for FFY 2018 and provided targets for FFY 2019 for thi15 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulated DSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Compl24SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements17Select yesTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input MA DESE works closely with stakeholders onFFY20132014201520162017Target >=48.00% - 58.00%48.0% - 58.00%48.00% - 58.00%48.00% - 58.00%48.00% - 58.00%Data25.00%42.11%41.67%57.14%53.85%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target48.00%75.00%48.00%75.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement 15 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone15 - OSEP ResponseThe State revised its targets f16 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulated DSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Request613SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints10SY 2018-19 EMAPS ID11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints498Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's daFFY20132014201520162017Target >=77.00% - 87.00%77.0% - 87.00%77.00% - 87.00%77.00% - 87.00%77.00% - 87.00%Data83.72%84.35%86.49%82.85%85.29%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target77.00%87.00%77.00%87.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints216 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP Response The State provided targets forTeri Williams ValentineTitle: Director of Special Education Planning & PolicyEmail: 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80889 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