2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B — North Dakota
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — North Dakota
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 Kirsten Baesler
St ate Superintendent
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction
600 East Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 201
Bismarck , North Dakota 58505
Dear State Superintendent Baesler :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) 2020
determi nation under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that North Dakota meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of
the IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data a nd information,
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
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 (scho ol
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/APR an d 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 findin gs 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, whi ch 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 P art 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 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 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 RD A
Determination is Meets Requirements 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 20 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. W e 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 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, but 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 pe rformance 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 ac tion; 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
website . Within the upcoming weeks , OSEP will be finalizing a State Profile that:
(1) includes the State’s determinatio n 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 imp rove 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 — North Dakota
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEA MeasurementStates may report data for children with disabilities using either the foFFY20132014201520162017Target >=89.00%89.00%89.00%89.00%89.00%Data69.85%69.93%67.82%67.88%66.34%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=89.00%89.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The NDDPI has actively solicited broad staSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spe10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate860 SY 2017-18 Regulatory AdRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table68.60%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DatNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a reProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequiredOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AOverall98.10%Act95.73%95.99%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The NDDPI has actively solicited broad staFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your finaa. Children with IEPs1,3321,3531,2611,2671,2061,083921b. IEPs in regular assessment c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations596741708766679657522f. IEPs in altData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Dat1,2621,2721,2071,084924b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations966908752399510521518522f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards1047378898GroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumber of Children with IEPs ParticipatinFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) must make available to(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))Data Source3C. Same data as used for reporting to the Depa 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOverall2005Actual49.51%18.63%21.52%17.95%15.82%Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFTarget >=100.00%100.00%100.0%100.00%100.00%AOverall50.20%Actual50.93%13.45%14.74%142019ReadingA >=Overall100.00%100.00%MathA >=Overall100.00%100.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The NDDPI has actively solicited broad staa. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned1,28634c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient ag37Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; D1,2881,3081,2291,2351,1531,019859b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodation30224123132512f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receiFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivedRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensio0.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80916 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