2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Nebraska
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Nebraska
MS WORDView PDF
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
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. Matthew L. Blomstedt
Commissioner of Education
Nebraska Department of Education
301 Centennial Mall Sout
P.O. Box 94987
Lincoln , Nebraska 68509
Dear Commissioner Blomstedt :
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 Nebraska 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/An nual
Performance Report (SPP/APR), other State - reported data, and oth er publicly available
information.
Your State’s 2020 determina tion 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 Results Elements ;
(3) a Compliance Score and a Results Score ;
(4) an RDA Percentage based on both the Compliance Score and the Results S core ; 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 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 HTDMD 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 assess ments;
(2) the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently administered (school
year 201 8 - 201 9 ) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP);
(3) t he percentage of CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma; and
(4) the percentage of C WD who drop ped out.
You may access 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
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 correc tion 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 “ 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 includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP use d 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 State’s 2020 RDA
Det ermination is Needs Assista nce 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 Specific 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.
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 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 implements the fifth year of Phase III of the SSIP, which is due on April 1, 2021 .
As a reminder, your State must report annually to the public, by posting on the Stat e educational
agency’s (SEA’s) webs ite, 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 St ate’s submission of its FFY 2018 SPP/APR. In addition, your State must:
(1) revie w LEA performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
(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 enfo rcement action; and
(4) inform each LEA of its determination.
Further, your State must make its SPP/APR available to the public by pos ting 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.
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 yo ur
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 — Nebraska
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 LEMeasurementStates may report data for children with disabilities using either the FFY20132014201520162017Target >=90.00%90.00%90.00%9.00%90.00%Data71.48%72.07%71.26%70.46%71.41%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=9.00%90.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder Involvement: Nebraska regulaSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file s10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate2,619 SY 2017-18 RegulatorRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table69.30%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a Nebraska's definition of a graduate with a regular high school diploma, which applMeasurementOPTION 1:States must report a percentage using the number of youth withFFY20132014201520162017Target =Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder Involvement: Nebraska regulaFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs4,1244,3154,2123,5633,7193,5502,899b. IEPs in regular assessmc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations2,3532,5902,6642,2642,3702,2291,9Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; D4,2123,5613,7183,5522,899b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations1,4632,7702,3752,5162,3791,919f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standarGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEAResults indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewidGrade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAElementaryXXXBMiddle SchoolXXXCHigh SchoolXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AElementa100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%24.32%AElementary24.32%Actual52.52%58.63%62.13%26.99%2BMiddle School15.43%Actual44.45%45.95%49.33%15.87%15.43%CHigh School2017Target >=133.23%31.09%34.81%17.21%14.95%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY201100.00%100.00%100.00%23.51%AElementary23.51%Actual50.83%52.01%52.26%51.01%23.51%BMBMiddle School18.94%Actual35.89%36.03%35.27%31.26%18.94%CHigh School2017Target >=115.84%Actual23.84%23.60%24.06%18.74%15.84%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Elementary24.32%25.32%ReadingB >=Middle School15.43%16.43%ReadingC >=High School14.95%15.95%MathA >=Elementary23.51%24.51%MathB >=Middle School18.94%19.94%MathC >=High School15.84%16.84%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder Involvement: Nebraska regulaFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fia. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned4,1c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; D4,1923,5433,7013,5192,766b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scor295260256174229f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored GroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was15.43%15.43%15.23%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageCHigh School2,76841614.95%14.95%15FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAElementary12,5953,18023.51SlippageCHigh School2,76645315.84%15.84%16.38%Met TargetNo SlippageGroupGroup NameBMiddle SchoolLEA's are still in the process of implementing the more rigorous ColRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEAProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)3C - Prior FFY RequiPercent = [(# of districts that meet the State-established n size (if applicable) FFY20132014201520162017Target =78.90%89.20%89.80%9.20%90.80%Data89.37%87.45%88.15%89.40%91.56%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=91.80%91.80%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as Parents of all students with disabilities, including preschool students with disabYESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics Include the State's analyses of the extent to which the demographics of the parent8 - Required ActionsIndicator 9: Disproportionate RepresentationInstructions and Select yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHistorical DataBaseline20050.00%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 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 ResponseThe State did not report valid and reliable data for this indConsider 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 ResponseThe State did not report valid and reliable data for this indicaInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.41%99.80%99.74%98.43%99.07%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8,8288,78799.07%100%99.54%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippagDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's m878700FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseThe State did not demonstrate that the LEA corrected the findings of noncompliancePercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are fFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%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 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 Nebraska Student & Staff Record System (NSSRS) collects information on childre0000Correction 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 Response12 - Required Actionsicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstHistorical DataBaseline200986.73%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data77.24%92.25%100.00%89.41%85.16%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage28831785.16%100%90.85%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageWhaIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its datIf no, please explainProvide additional information about this indicator (optionalFindings 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 ResponseThe State did not demonstrate that the LEA corrected the findings of noncomplianceEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=35A39.40%Data36.85%37.05%34.96%38.16%36.20%B2009Target >=65.50%65.50%65.80%66.00%66.66.93%66.79%62.86%61.84%57.33%C2009Target >=82.90%83.00%83.20%83.40%83.40%C83.60%D75.30%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=39.60%39.60%Target B >=67.00%67.00%Target C >=83.65%83.65%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder Involvement: Nebraska regulaNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in e2. 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 secondar25482336.20%39.60%30.86%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageB. Enrolled in higher educationPartReasons for slippage, if applicableAGroup A's drop this year is most likely due to a change in criteria that helped deCGroup C: Other employment is another example of the additional requirements lowerPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same defWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are represenProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)14 - Prior FFY RequiThe State provided targets for FFY 2019, and OSEP accepts those targets. 14 - RPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com7SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Co3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements2Select yeTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder Involvement: Nebraska regulaFFY20132014201520162017Target >=Data100.00%50.00%50.00%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSnstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EffectiveSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 Reque0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints5Select yes if Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Stakeholder Involvement: Nebraska regulaFFY20132014201520162017Target >=Data50.00%100.00%100.00%100.0%0.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=0.00%0.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaintStatusSlippage0550.00%0.00%10.00%Met TargetNo SlippageProvide additional informatemic Improvement Plan ent.DC 402-471-4323Submitted on:04/27/20 5:57:01 PM ED Documents EMBED Acrobat.Documen
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80901 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