2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B — Ohio
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Ohio
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 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 Paolo DeMaria
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Ohio Department of Education
25 South Front Street
Columbus , Ohio 43215
Dear Superintendent DeMaria :
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 Ohio needs assistance in implementing the requ irements 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 other p ublicly 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 Mat rix 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 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:
(1) the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide assess ments;
Page 2 — Chief State School Officer
(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 t he 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) a ny other actions that the State is required to take are in the “Required Actions” sec tion
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 atta chments:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(2) t he 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 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 determ ination is Needs Assistance. A State’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 De partment 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
addition al 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) review LEA performance against targets in the State’s SPP/APR;
Page 3 — Chief State School Officer
(2) d etermine 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 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 al l State
attachments that are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 ; and
(2) w ill be accessible to the public via the ed.gov website.
OSEP appreciates the State’s efforts to improve results for children and youth with disa bilities
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 — Ohio
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT Provide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary How and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each MeasurementStates may report data for children with disabilities using either thFFY20132014201520162017Target >=78.20%80.50%82.80%85.10%72.30%Data68.90%68.41%67.01%69.57%70.45%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=73.80%75.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Ohio's State Advisory Panel for ExceptSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate22,085 SY 2017-18 RegulaRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table51.37%FFY 2018 SPP/APRNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with Ohio's students in the classes of 2018 and 2019 had multiple pathways to earn a Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IndivFFY20132014201520162017Target =55.90%38.56%24.18%24.18%24.68%AOverall24.18%Actual5Historical Data: MathGroup Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOverall201Overall28.57%Actual44.12%34.19%28.57%29.55%33.58%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall25.18%25.18%MathA >=Overall29.50%29.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Ohio's State Advisory Panel for ExceptFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your a. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned2c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175;21,00521,08820,47019,41919,597b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodatio3,4922,7152,2922,7561,160f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency wGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was asPublic Reporting InformationProvide links to the page(s) where you provide publiMeasurementPercent = [(# of districts that meet the State-established n size (ifFFY20132014201520162017Target =79.00%79.40%79.80%80.20%80.60%A164.70%Data81.56%78.51%83.09%83.6250.80%51.40%A247.40%Data48.88%48.09%49.19%50.17%49.70%B12008Target >=79.20%79.6080.89%78.56%81.87%82.59%81.6%B22008Target >=48.30%48.90%49.50%50.10%50.70%B245.C12008Target >=81.30%81.70%82.10%82.50%82.90%C166.90%Data83.60%80.73%82.16%85.4161.10%61.80%C259.20%Data58.16%58.10%66.57%60.34%61.13%TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=81.00%81.00%Target A2 >=52.00%52.00%Target B1 >=81.20%81.20%Target B2 >=51.30%51.30%Target C1 >=83.30%83.30%Target C2 >=62.50%62.50%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Ohio's State Advisory Panel for ExceptNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improv0.64%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged ped. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improv0.78%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged ped. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improvb. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearerc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged ped. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to sae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectYESWas sampling used? NODid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) ChOhio uses the Child Outcomes Summary Form and process to gather data for this inSamplingof parents from whom response is requestedis allowed. When sampling isIf yes, will you be providing the data for preschool children separately?NOTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Ohio's State Advisory Panel for ExceptFFY20132014201520162017Target >=93.00%93.20%93.40%93.60%93.80%Data92.03%92.66%96.05%95.32%90.23%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=94.00%94.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schoolsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage58564390.23%94.00%90.98%DWas sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changedDescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and If yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographicIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the futPlease see the "Indicator Data" section for the analysis of the extent to which Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation oFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 reNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grDescribe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the dispropor0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corr9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, usinConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation oFFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%0.10%0.00%0.00%0.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size reNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grDefine disproportionate representation. Please specify in your definition: 1) 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the baseline for this indicator, using dInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to selecFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.31%99.14%99.06%99.40%98.79%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage28,80128,59998.79%100%99.30%Did Not Meet TargetNo SliProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Find949400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Finding11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported 11 - Required Actions11 - State Attachments EMBED Word.Document.12 s IndiInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to selecFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.16%98.58%98.02%97.99%99.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C anb. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility c. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by td. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluatioe. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before theirf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention serviceNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3State database that includes data for the entire reporting yearDescribe the meth990FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Finding12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseThe State has revised the b12 - Required Actions12 - State Attachments EMBED Word.Document.12 s IndiBaseline200999.50%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.26%99.34%99.27%99.96%99.90%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contaiFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage65,46465,50199.90%100%99.94%Did Not Meet TargetNo SliIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its dIf no, please explainThough state law now requires transition planning and serviFindings of Noncompliance Subsequently CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Cor00FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly im13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State musEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have be14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=A39.60%Data33.70%29.37%36.45%28.81%27.53%B2009Target >=70.60%71.00%72.00%73.00%770.86%C2009Target >=79.30%80.00%81.00%82.00%83.00%C66.60%Data78.38%81.87%83.95%8FFY20182019Target A >=39.70%39.70%Target B >=75.00%75.00%Target C >=84.00%84.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Ohio's State Advisory Panel for Except1,4291. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one y2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leav3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or 4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year oNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in second3941,42927.53%39.70%27.57%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher edPartReasons for slippage, if applicableBThe Ohio Longitudinal Transition Study (OLTS) project staff have identified the YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and If yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the surveyInd 14 - 2018-19 Exit and Follow Up Survey PaInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are represIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the fut14 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator. OSStates are not required to report data at the LEA level.15 - Indicator DataSelecSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C61SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements22SelectTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Ohio's State Advisory Panel for ExceptFFY20132014201520162017Target >=41.00% - 49.00%Data42.42%43.04%50.00%41.07%54.17%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target42.00%50.00%42.00%51.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlemProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)15 - Prior FFY ReqStates may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75-85%).If the data reported SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req159SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation 2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints57SY 2018-19 EMAP11/11/20192.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints73Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'FFY20132014201520162017Target >=72.00%76.00% - 84.0%Data79.69%72.97%75.84%76.32%79.56%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target77.00%85.00%77.00%85.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation None16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicatorDirector, Office for Exceptional Children, Ohio Department of EducationEmail: jo55Part B
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80920 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