2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Minnesota
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Minnesota
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 Mary Catherine Ric ker
Commissioner of Education
Minnesota Department of Education
1500 Highway 36 West
Roseville , Minnesota 55113
Dear Commissioner Ricker :
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 Minnesota 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 F ederal 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
Result s - 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
complian ce data in making determinations in 20 20 , as it did for Part B determinations in 201 4,
2015, 2016, 2017 , 2018 and 201 9 . (The specifics of the determination procedures and criteria are
set forth in the HTDMD and reflected in the RDA Matrix for your State.) In maki ng Part B
determinations in 20 20 , OSEP continued to use results data related to:
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assessments;
(2) the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently administered (sc hool
year 201 8 - 201 9 ) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP);
(3) t he percentage of CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma; and
(4) the percentage of CWD who drop ped out.
You may access the results of OSEP’s review of your State’s SPP/A PR and other relevant data
by accessing the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool using your State - specific log - on information at
https://emaps.ed.gov/suite/ . When you access your State’s SPP/APR on the site, you will find , in
Indicators 1 through 16, the OSEP Response to the indicator and any actions that the State is
required to take. The actions that the State is required to take are in two places:
(1) actions related to the correction of findings of noncompliance are in the “OSEP
Response” section of the indicator; and
(2) any other actions that the State is required to take are in the “Required Actions” section
of the indicator.
It is important for you to review the Introduction to the SPP/ APR, which may also include
language in the “ OSEP R esponse ” and/or “ Required Actions ” sections .
You will also find all of the following important documents saved as attachments:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(2) the HTDMD document;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “20 20 Data Rubric Part B,” which shows how OSEP calculated the
State’s “Timely and Accurate State - Reported Data” score in the Compliance Matrix; and
(4) a document entitled “Dispute Resolution 201 8 - 20 1 9 ,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used to c alculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix .
As noted above, the State’s 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 RDA
Determination is Meets Requirement s if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%, unless the
Department has imposed Special or Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part B
grant awards (for FFYs 201 7 , 201 8 , and 201 9 ), and those Speci fic Conditions are i n effect at the
time of the 20 2 0 determination.
States were required to submit Phase II I Year Four of the SSIP by April 1, 20 20 . OSEP
appreciates the State’s ongoing work on its SSIP and its efforts to improve results for students
with disabilities. We have carefully reviewed and respon ded to your submission and will provide
additional feedback in the upcoming weeks. Additionally, OSEP will continue to work with your
State as it implement s the fifth year of Phase III of the SSIP , which is due on Ap ril 1 , 202 1 .
As a reminder, your State must report annually to the public, by posting on the State educational
agency’s (SEA’s) website , the performance of each local educational agency (LEA) located in
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
the State on the targets in the SPP/APR as soon as practicable, bu t no later than 120 days after
the State’s submission of its FFY 201 8 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(1) review LEA performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
(2) determine if each LEA “meets the requirements” of Part B, or “needs assistance,” “ needs
intervention,” or “needs substantial intervention” in implementing Part B of the IDEA ;
(3) take appropriate enforcement action; and
(4) inform each LEA of its determination.
Further, your State must make its SPP/APR available to the public by posting it o n the SEA’s
website . Within the upcoming weeks , OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that:
(1) includes the State’s determination letter and SPP/APR, OSEP attachments , and all State
attachments that are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Reha bilitation Act
of 1973 ; and
(2) will be accessible to the public via the ed.gov website.
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve results for children and youth with disabilities
and looks forward to working with your State over the next year as we con tinue our important
work of improving the lives of children with disabilities and their families. Please contact your
OSEP State Lead i f you have any questions, would like to discuss this further, or want to request
technical assistance.
Sincerely,
Lau rie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Minnesota
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 >=90.00%90.00%90.00%9.00%90.00%Data58.21%58.43%61.14%60.76%61.18%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=9.00%90.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In Minnesota, the development of the SPPSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file s10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate10,270 SY 2017-18 RegulatoRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table62.30%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a If yes, explain the difference in conditions that youth with IEPs must meet.As staOPTION 1:States must report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (agesFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%Overall97.50%Actual98.13%97.84%96.29%95.18%94.34%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In Minnesota, the development of the SPPFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs11,01811,36711,38510,68810,1569,8379,100b. IEPs in regular asc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations9131,1251,038843836726433f. IEPs Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; D11,38210,68510,1449,8218,547b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations7,2,4812,0901,9721,619812f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standardsGroupGroup 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 8XGHSXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 334.00%35.00%36.00%37.00%AGrade 334.12%Actual34.12%34.75%33.56%32.92%31.30%BGrade 4BGrade 431.27%Actual31.27%32.57%32.83%32.20%32.10%CGrade 52014Target >=40.76%36.0036.84%36.74%36.24%DGrade 62014Target >=33.86%31.00%32.00%33.00%34.00%DGrade 631.85Grade 72014Target >=32.49%24.00%25.00%26.00%27.00%EGrade 724.02%Actual32.49%24.02%25.00%26.00%FGrade 823.89%Actual31.24%23.89%26.05%26.16%25.22%GHS2014Target >=30.523.83%Actual30.54%23.83%26.16%27.16%27.44%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBasTarget >=48.01%46.00%47.00%48.00%49.00%AGrade 348.01%Actual48.01%46.61%45.55%43.8046.00%47.00%BGrade 444.22%Actual44.22%44.30%42.81%41.88%39.92%CGrade 52014Target >CGrade 531.44%Actual33.73%31.44%30.32%29.78%28.08%DGrade 62014Target >=28.03%28.00Actual28.03%28.66%25.95%26.59%24.99%EGrade 72014Target >=24.60%21.00%22.00%23.00%221.58%21.52%FGrade 82014Target >=25.25%23.00%24.00%25.00%26.00%FGrade 823.20%ActuaGHS2014Target >=16.05%15.00%17.00%19.00%20.00%GHS15.59%Actual16.05%15.59%15.80%15.GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Grade 338.00%38.00%ReadingB >=Grade 435.00%35.0%ReadingC >=Grade 540.00%40.00%ReadingD >=Grade 635.00%35.0%ReadingE >=Grade 728.00%28.00%ReadingF >=Grade 827.00%27.0%ReadingG >=HS27.00%27.00%MathA >=Grade 350.00%50.00%MathB >=Grade 448.00%48.00%MathC >=Grade 535.00%35.00%MathD >=Grade 632.00%32.00%MathE >=Grade 725.00%25.00%MathF >=Grade 827.00%27.00%MathG >=HS22.00%22.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In Minnesota, the development of the SPPFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned10,c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; D10,95310,1929,6559,1817,241b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations sc20815515214339f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored aGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was32.10%35.00%29.89%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageCGrade 510,3593,69936.24%40.00%35.71%EGrade 79,3452,38725.80%28.0%25.54%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 88,9372,227.44%27.00%27.89%Met TargetNo SlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if appBGrade 4Minnesota saw drops and some increases in overall scores in 2019 state reaFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAGrade 310,6534,58042.87%50.00%42.99%DidCGrade 510,9533,11428.08%35.0%28.43%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageDGrade 610,192221.52%25.00%21.31%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 89,1812,14522.56%27.00%23.3GroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableGHSMinnesota saw a drop in scores overall in 2019 state math assessments. Of all gRegulatory 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 =70.00%71.00%71.00%71.50%72.00%Data64.27%69.31%64.54%71.89%70.19%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=72.00%72.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools fFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35450370.19%72.00%70.38%DidWas sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NDescribe 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 a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and 9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentConsider 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%Data96.29%97.04%97.52%98.14%96.28%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage51549696.28%100%96.31%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageNumDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's m313100FFY 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 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%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and b. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility wac. 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 wState monitoringDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are fr0000Correction 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 DataBaseline200958.80%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data89.38%88.30%88.40%89.53%79.73%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage35638779.73%100%91.99%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageWhaIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its datIf no, please explainMinnesota has opted to not include students younger than age Findings 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 impl13 - 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 FFY20132014201520162017A2013Target >=23A23.39%Data23.39%29.31%24.86%23.24%27.14%B2009Target >=66.00%66.00%66.40%66.80%67.66.63%70.53%69.25%61.71%65.67%C2009Target >=77.90%78.30%78.70%79.10%79.50%C77.60%D80.05%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=26.60%26.60%Target B >=67.60%67.60%Target C >=79.90%79.90%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input In Minnesota, the development of the SPP6861. 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 secondar16868627.14%26.60%24.49%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageB. Enrolled in higher educationPartReasons for slippage, if applicableAWhile Minnesota saw a decrease in the number of respondent students enrolled in hiCWhile Minnesota saw a decrease in the number of students enrolled in higher educaPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 2: Report in alignmWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the survey2019 Post School Outcome Survey Final for FFY 2Include 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 provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts those15 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulatedSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com3SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Co3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements1Select yeTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input In Minnesota, the development of the SPPFFY20132014201520162017Target >=10.00%10.00%20.00%2.00%15.00% - 20.00%Data9.09%40.00%10.53%9.09%33.33%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target20.00%25.00%20.00%25.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlemen15 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone15 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target f16 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulatedSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque36SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints1SY 2018-19 EMAPS I11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints32Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's FFY20132014201520162017Target >=70.00% - 75.00%75.0% - 80.00%75.00% - 80.00%80.00% - 90.00%80.00% - 90.0Data71.43%81.25%96.88%92.68%84.62%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target80.00%90.00%80.00%90.00%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 fCarolyn CherryTitle: Supervisor/Part B Data ManagerEmail: carolyn.cherry@state.mn.55Part B
(Grant Year 2018-2019—Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80893 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