2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – New Jersey
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — New Jersey
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 Lamont Repollet
Co mmissioner of Education
New Jersey Department of Education
100 River View Plaza
P.O. Box 500
Trenton , New Jersey 08625
Dear Commissioner Repollet :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determination unde r section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that New Jersey meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of
the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and informatio n,
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 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
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
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:
(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 .
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
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, 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 — New Jersey
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary andHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEASame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under TFFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%78.00%78.00%81.00%Data75.90%76.62%77.99%78.80%78.84%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=81.00%81.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ SourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file sp10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate16,045 SY 2017-18 RegulatorRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table80.14%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DaNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a rProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequireUse same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFY 2010 FFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AOverall95.55%Actual94.23%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall97.00%97.00%MathA >=Overall97.00%97.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fina. Children with IEPs18,06719,07019,19618,90618,21318,06633,007b. IEPs in regular ac. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations9,95711,62312,71513,43612,86713,10Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Da19,20518,90918,22218,05730,236b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations612,57913,18412,62812,85121,142f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate staGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatiFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNuThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available t(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))Data Source3C. Same data as used for reporting to the Dep 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAGrade 3XBGrade 4XCGrade 5XDGrade 6XEGrade 7XFGrade 8XGHSXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AGrade 32060.50%65.40%70.40%70.40%AGrade 354.19%Actual39.92%22.78%22.88%24.38%24.33%BGrade 42BGrade 450.21%Actual33.85%24.00%23.52%25.45%26.18%CGrade 52005Target >=50.60%55.50%21.19%23.41%23.36%DGrade 6205Target >=50.60%55.50%60.50%65.40%70.40%DGrade 637.30%Grade 72005Target >=50.60%55.50%60.50%65.40%70.40%EGrade 744.69%Actual26.41%17.56%165.40%70.40%FGrade 834.81%Actual43.20%15.89%17.51%19.35%20.54%GHS2005Target >=50.6046.05%Actual70.31%10.73%12.48%13.31%15.20%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseTarget >=61.80%66.10%70.30%74.60%74.60%AGrade 372.00%Actual55.05%25.96%28.38%29.14%70.30%74.60%BGrade 461.03%Actual52.37%19.91%22.56%22.87%23.74%CGrade 52005Target >=CGrade 553.90%Actual54.01%17.84%19.31%19.68%20.27%DGrade 62005Target >=57.60%61.80%Actual46.99%14.12%13.86%13.93%14.01%EGrade 72005Target >=57.60%61.80%66.10%70.30%7411.63%12.63%FGrade 82005Target >=57.60%61.80%66.10%70.30%74.60%FGrade 827.95%ActualGHS2005Target >=57.60%61.80%66.10%70.30%74.60%GHS33.80%Actual40.33%4.46%5.56%6.11%7GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Grade 370.40%32.00%ReadingB >=Grade 470.40%32.0%ReadingC >=Grade 570.40%32.00%ReadingD >=Grade 670.40%32.0%ReadingE >=Grade 770.40%32.00%ReadingF >=Grade 870.40%32.0%ReadingG >=HS70.40%32.00%MathA >=Grade 374.60%32.00%MathB >=Grade 474.60%32.00%MathC >=Grade 574.60%32.00%MathD >=Grade 674.60%32.00%MathE >=Grade 774.60%32.00%MathF >=Grade 874.60%32.00%MathG >=HS74.60%32.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your fina. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned17,4c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient agaData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; Da18,45118,15417,38517,13428,740b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations 1,6031,1521,2841,4181,727f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standardGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was 26.18%70.40%25.88%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageCGrade 518,4654,50823.36%70.40%24.4EGrade 717,4144,08223.37%70.40%23.44%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFGrade 817,1974,15.20%70.40%18.65%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math Assessm29.31%74.60%31.14%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageBGrade 418,3524,73323.74%74.60%25.7DGrade 618,1542,34914.01%74.60%12.94%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageEGrade 717,3852,26213.20%74.60%13.55%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageGHS28,7402,6557.16%74.60%9.24%Did NDGrade 6In the 2016-17 school year, New Jersey adopted the New Jersey Student LearnRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA)Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)In response to OSEP fInstructionsIf the State has established a minimum n size requirement, the State maFFY20132014201520162017Target =6668.00%69.00%B166.67%Data66.67%72.10%78.30%66.02%B22013Target >=48.25%51.00%51.00%5248.25%Data48.25%56.00%51.85%56.64%C12013Target >=70.29%70.00%70.00%70.50%71.00%C17052.38%C22013Target >=56.00%59.00%59.00%60.00%60.00%C256.00%Data56.00%56.50%58.02%62TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=73.00%73.00%Target A2 >=78.5%78.50%Target B1 >=70.00%70.00%Target B2 >=54.00%54.00%Target C1 >=71.00%71.00%Target C2 >=61.00%61.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ Number of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve f0.00%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peersd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-agedNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatiNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve f0.00%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peersd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-agedNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatiNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve fb. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer toc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peersd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-e. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-agedNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatiYESWas sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changedDescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and relThe State did not provide data for FFY 2017. The State must provide the required daWhile a survey is not required for this indicator, a State using a survey must submTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ FFY20132014201520162017Target >=84.00%84.50%85.00%85.50%85.50%Data85.18%82.33%84.45%84.49%83.65%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=86.00%86.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools faFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage7,8709,28783.65%86.00%84.74%Was sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and relIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics oIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future8 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OProvide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance as noted FFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.15%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 requiFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage306570.00%0%0.00%Met TargetNCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2017Findings of Noncompli000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correct9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentaConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of rFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requiNumber of districts in the StateFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlipProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Finding000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: Child FindInstructions and MeInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data91.41%90.92%91.32%91.96%91.29%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluaFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage26,00924,29691.29%100%93.41%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippaDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's mo2,2582,2580FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings o11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause 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 frFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data92.87%92.19%92.05%91.86%92.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referc. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by theid. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation oe. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their thf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services bNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 whState database that includes data for the entire reporting yearDescribe the method 1901900FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings o12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported les12 - Required ActionsIndicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstructions and Measuremen200990.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data90.41%76.24%75.29%80.14%98.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain eFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage4043198.72%100%92.81%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageProvideNOProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of FindiFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected550FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verAs required by OSEP Memorandum 09-02, NJDOE aggregates all available data for this 13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must rEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been 14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=46.A45.00%Data49.24%51.88%53.26%52.50%52.20%B2009Target >=75.00%75.00%75.50%75.50%76.074.05%81.27%82.32%80.53%83.67%C2009Target >=86.00%86.00%86.00%86.50%86.50%C84.00%Da89.55%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=47.50%48.00%Target B >=76.00%77.00%Target C >=86.50%87.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ 1,2461. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or tra4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of lNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary5941,24652.20%47.50%47.67%Met TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher education or cPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 2: Report in alignmeIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling Include the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are representProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)For accessibility pur SessionsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: SourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process CompSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Comp15Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'sFFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ Offices of Special Education Policy and DiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=55.00%56.00%57.00%58.00%59.00%Data93.75%61.54%100.00%71.43%77.78%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=60.00%75.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved throug3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlnstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective SourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequesSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reques121SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints136Select yes ifTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input FFY 2018 Stakeholder InvolvementThe NJ FFY20132014201520162017Target >=37.00%38.00%38.50%38.50%39.00%Data38.23%32.87%33.16%35.63%38.86%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=39.00%39.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaintsStatusSlippage12113667838.86%39.00%37.91%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide addiemic Improvement Plan EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC CertiSubmitted on:04/30/20 2:32:53 PM ED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80908 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