2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – New Mexico - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

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 Ryan Stewart Secretary New Mexico Public Education Department 300 Don Gaspar Avenue, #109 Santa Fe , New Mexico 87501 Dear Secretary Stewart : 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 New Mexico needs assistance in implementing th e 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 o ther 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 — New Mexico

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 LEAResults indicator: Percent of youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) gFFY20132014201520162017Target >=71.80%73.70%75.60%77.40%77.40%Data60.08%56.49%59.32%61.85%61.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=77.40%77.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State IDEA-Part B Advisory Panel provSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file sp10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate3,674 SY 2017-18 RegulatoryRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table65.60%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DaNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a rIf yes, explain the difference in conditions that youth with IEPs must meet.The conSame data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IndividuFFY20132014201520162017Target =Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State IDEA-Part B Advisory Panel provFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNuRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA)A. Indicator 3A ReservedB. Participation rate for children with IEPsC. ProficiencGrade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOveral65.30%65.30%65.30%AOverall5.13%Actual16.33%5.13%6.41%11.83%9.28%Historical Data: MaAOverall2014Target >=50.00%5.66%60.00%60.00%60.00%AOverall5.66%Actual13.48%5.66%6.8GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall65.30%65.30%MathA >=Overall60.00%60.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State IDEA-Part B Advisory Panel provFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receiveGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableAOverallRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available tInstructions and Measurement Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults Indicator:Baseline 20160.81%FFY20132014201520162017Target =7576.49%76.49%B176.49%Data72.77%76.49%77.68%73.70%75.31%B22014Target >=63.10%50.31%5050.31%Data49.30%50.31%49.89%49.54%45.19%C12014Target >=74.70%76.85%76.85%76.85%C17676.84%78.44%C22014Target >=72.20%62.15%62.33%62.33%C262.15%Data58.01%62.15%62.33%60TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=77.80%77.80%Target A2 >=54.5%54.50%Target B1 >=76.50%76.50%Target B2 >=50.35%50.35%Target C1 >=76.86%76.86%Target C2 >=62.35%62.35%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State IDEA-Part B Advisory Panel provNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve f2.44%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 f2.49%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 expectatiPartReasons for slippage, if applicableA1The State did not meet the target for IndiA2The State did not meet the target for Indicator A2 and demonstrated slippage of 4B1The State did not meet the target for Indicator B1 and demonstrated slippage of 2B2The State did not meet the target for Indicator B2 and demonstrated slippage of 5C1The State did not meet the target for Indicator C1 and demonstrated slippage of 3C2The State did not meet the target for Indicator C2 and demonstrated slippage of 5Does the State include in the numerator and denominator only children who received Did you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form ( 7 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OStates are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centerIn FFY 2018, a stratified random number of 15,651 parents was generated from all paFFY20132014201520162017Target >=81.80%82.00%83.00%84.00%84.00%Data84.81%82.69%86.17%82.45%84.21%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=84.00%84.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools faFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage77094184.21%84.00%81.83%Did 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 oInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the demographics of the parents8 - Required Actions8 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Indicator 9 - Indicator DataNot ApplicableSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHiFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groupProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Out of one hundred fo0000Correction 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 Actions9 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.DocumProvide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for all children aged 6 through 21 seFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groupDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproportio0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required Actions10 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.DocumePercent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are from State monitorFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.77%99.34%99.40%99.06%99.66%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluaFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage9,1679,13499.66%100%99.64%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Finding431FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriActions taken if noncompliance not correctedFor the one (1) non-compliant LEA, in aFFY 2016211FFY 2015202FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifFFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as CorrectedActions taken if nonData to be taken from State monitoring or State data system.Measurementa. # of chiHistorical DataBaseline200594.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data94.29%97.90%96.73%96.06%99.48%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 5401FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State veriActions taken if noncompliance not correctedOne (1) LEA demonstrated continuing nonFFY 2015110FFY 2015Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verif12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported les13 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline200998.45%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data94.04%96.36%87.35%93.08%95.87%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain eFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,2851,33495.87%100%96.33%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its dataIf no, please explainThe State is in the process of developing a plan for fourteen Findings of Noncompliance Subsequently CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correc02FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly impleFFY 2016220FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verif13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported lesInstructionsSamplingof youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary schoolisMeasure A: For purposes of reporting on the measures/indicators, please note that aTarget >=49.00%49.00%49.00%49.00%49.00%A48.00%Data43.83%43.26%42.85%41.13%40.01%B2076.00%76.00%B75.00%Data74.92%76.10%75.34%76.39%75.47%C2009Target >=80.00%80.00%80.079.00%Data81.17%80.71%81.37%80.94%82.82%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=49.00%49.00%Target B >=76.00%76.00%Target C >=80.00%80.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The State IDEA-Part B Advisory Panel prov1,7311. 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 secondary6371,73140.01%49.00%36.80%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageB. Enrolled in higher educatioPartReasons for slippage, if applicableAThe State did not meet the target of 49% for FFY 2018 for Indicator 14A and demonstCThe State did not meet the target of 80% for FFY 2018 for Indicator 14C and demonsPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same defiWas 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 representProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)The State's post-scho14 - State Assessments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Indicator 15: Resolution SesPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 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 Comp1Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's The State IDEA-Part B Advisory Panel provided input on indicator targets on SeptembFFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00% - 85.00%55.0% - 70.00%55.00% - 70.00%55.00% - 70.00%55.00% - 70.00Data59.09%100.00%100.00%100.0%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target55.00%70.00%55.00%70.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement15 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone15 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for16 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulated SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reques36SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requ2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints18SY 2018-19 EMAPS I11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints1Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's dFFY20132014201520162017Target >=80.00% - 85.00%75.0% - 85.00%75.00% - 85.00%75.00% - 85.00%75.00% - 85.00Data75.68%75.86%72.50%78.05%68.29%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 complaints16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets forName: Deborah Dominguez-ClarkTitle: New Mexico Director of Special Education Email: 55Part B

(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations

Email Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Last modified on September 17, 2020

2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – New Mexico

About IDEA

Subscribe for Updates

About IDEA

Subscribe for Updates

Connect with Us