2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Michigan
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Michigan
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 Dr. Michael Rice
State Superintendent
Michigan Department of Education
608 West Allegan Street, P.O. Box 30008
Lansing , Michigan 48909
Dear Superintendent Rice :
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 Michigan needs assistance 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 State - reported data, and oth er 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 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 — Michigan
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 LEData SourceSame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (DepartmFFY20132014201520162017Target >=80.00%80.00%80.00%8.00%80.00%Data53.63%55.07%57.12%64.15%65.34%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=8.00%80.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education OffSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file s10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate13,468 SY 2017-18 RegulatoRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table63.53%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a Provide a narrative that describes the conditions youth must meet in order to gradOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itsFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%BMiddle School96.58%Actua97.53%CHigh School2014Target >=95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%CHigh School90.58%Act94.11%92.35%Historical Data: MathGroup Group Name Baseline FFY2013201420152016201795.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AElementary School97.90%Actual98.65%97.90%97.19%98.49%98.8BMiddle School97.25%Actual98.35%97.25%97.55%98.01%98.17%CHigh School2014Target >=991.18%Actual93.86%91.18%93.39%94.73%93.23%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Elementary School95.00%95.00%ReadingB >=Middle School95.0%95.00%ReadingC >=High School95.00%95.00%MathA >=Elementary School95.0%95.00%MathB >=Middle School95.00%95.00%MathC >=High School95.00%95.0%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education OffFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs14,09714,35114,78014,87814,39514,33512,514b. IEPs in regular c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations2932863054,5584,4936,4718,241f. IData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; D14,77814,87814,39514,33412,514b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations2,5082,7122,4436,5608,360f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standarGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs Participat97.53%95.00%97.36%Met TargetNo SlippageCHigh School12,51411,67192.35%95.00%93.26%DNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatingFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DatMet TargetNo SlippageCHigh School12,51411,74493.23%95.00%93.85%Did Not Meet Target3B - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone3B - OSEP Response The State provided targets fIndicator 3C: Proficiency calculations in this SPP/APR must result in proficiency Grade 12HSAElementary SchoolXXXBMiddle SchoolXXXCHigh SchoolXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AElementary School2014Target >=70.00%72.00%74.00%76.00%77.00%ABMiddle School2014Target >=67.00%70.00%72.00%74.00%76.00%BMiddle School21.62%Actua62.00%65.00%68.00%71.00%74.0%CHigh School26.29%Actual37.27%26.29%27.83%27.72%26.820162017AElementary School2014Target >=49.00%53.00%58.00%62.00%67.00%AElementary SBMiddle School2014Target >=46.00%50.00%55.00%60.00%65.00%BMiddle School18.23%Actua2014Target >=41.00%47.00%52.0%58.00%63.00%CHigh School19.74%Actual18.28%19.74%20.20182019ReadingA >=Elementary School79.00%79.00%ReadingB >=Middle School78.00%78.00%ReadingC >=High School76.00%76.00%MathA >=Elementary School71.00%71.00%MathB >=Middle School70.00%7.00%MathC >=High School69.00%69.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education Offa. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned13,196c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient1,570Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS113,92314,19414,60714,64114,13013,88911,744b. IEPs in regular assessment with no ac1255514551406403f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scoredFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who recMiddle School42,45710,35121.65%78.00%24.38%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageCHigh SchGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableAElementary SchoolAs a result of a review of data related to the 1% cap under ESSA on the percent ofFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAElementary School42,7249,15222.34%71.00CHigh School11,7441,80317.64%69.00%15.35%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageGroupGroup NamCHigh SchoolAs a result of a review of data related to the 1% cap under ESSA on thRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEAProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)3C - Prior FFY RequiInstructionsIf the State has established a minimum n size requirement, the State mFFY20132014201520162017Target =59.00%56.00%553.70%Data57.59%56.34%58.93%57.13%57.41%C12011Target >=89.00%86.00%86.50%87.25%87.88.66%89.14%C22011Target >=73.00%59.10%59.20%59.30%59.40%C258.70%Data60.41%59.17%6TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=88.00%88.00%Target A2 >=55.3%55.30%Target B1 >=89.00%89.00%Target B2 >=56.50%56.50%Target C1 >=88.25%88.25%Target C2 >=59.50%59.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education OffNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve 0.91%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 0.62%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 applicableB1The two targets not met were both in SummC1See explanation in B1 above.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 7 - OSEP Response The State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, andStates are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centeTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education Off20132014201520162017Preschool2007Target >=45.00%45.50%46.00%46.50%47.00%Preschool350.48%School age2007Target >=24.80%25.20%25.60%26.00%26.40%School age20.50%Data27.FFY20182019Target A >=47.50%47.50%Target B >=26.80%26.80%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Preschool Children Reported SeparatelyNumber of respondent StatusSlippagePreschool2,3374,74550.48%47.50%49.25%Met TargetNo SlippageSchool agePercentage of respondent parents23.48%Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previDescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reIf 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 targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of FFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%0.81%0.00%0.29%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)The State has moved 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correc10FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly implInclude State's definition of disproportionate representation. Please specify inFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data2.04%1.86%0.00%2.00%1.17%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 disproporti8800FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet VeFFY 2016220FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriMeasurementa. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.b. FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.72%99.85%99.80%99.86%99.77%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage31,39531,25599.77%100%99.55%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's m333201FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedFor the one district with uncorrected 11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are fFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data97.26%89.78%76.08%93.09%93.52%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 wData are submitted by member districts and validated within the Michigan Student D666204FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verActions taken if noncompliance not correctedFor the four districts with uncorrecteFFY 2016220FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veri12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported le13 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline201892.34%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.70%76.78%78.34%81.23%81.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8,9299,67081.00%100%92.34%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippagProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)The State has revise34834710FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings FFY 201615150FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veri13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the basInstructionsSamplingof youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary schooliMeasure A: For purposes of reporting on the measures/indicators, please note that Target >=32.80%33.00%33.20%33.40%33.60%A28.21%Data33.58%34.79%32.36%32.56%29.18%B260.50%61.00%B42.82%Data63.18%65.35%63.31%62.96%64.85%C2018Target >=71.50%72.00%72.75.19%Data77.11%77.09%76.82%76.93%77.43%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=33.90%33.90%Target B >=61.50%61.50%Target C >=74.00%75.25%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education Off7941. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year 2. 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 secondar22479429.18%33.90%28.21%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher educatPartReasons for slippage, if applicableBMichigan met one of its FFY 2018 targets for Indicator 14 (Measure C). The targetsYESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the surveyB14_PostSchool_Survey_2019_ForMDE_Final_ADAInclude 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 futur14 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using datStates are not required to report data at the LEA level.15 - Indicator DataSelect SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com33SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements18Select yTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education OffFFY20132014201520162017Target >=42.00%44.00%46.00%48.00%50.00%Data57.14%37.04%51.22%42.86%46.88%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=52.00%52.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 Numbe15 - Required ActionsIndicator 16: MediationInstructions and MeasurementMonitorinPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequeSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque21SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints106Select yes iTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The Michigan Department of Education OffFFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00% - 85.00%Data81.25%77.63%81.69%78.35%81.15%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 fJulie TrevinoTitle: SPP-APR CoordinatorEmail: trevinoj1@michigan.govPhone:517-241-55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80891 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