2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B — South Carolina
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — South Carolina
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 Molly Spearman
Superintendent of Education
South Carolina Department of Education
1006 Rutledge Building, 1429 Senate Street
Columbia , South Carolina 29201
Dear Superintendent Spearman :
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 South Carolina 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/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR ), other State - reported data, and other 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 — South Carolina
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PROGRsProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and Reporting to the PublicHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 peData SourceSame data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (DepartmentFFY20132014201520162017Target >=40.30%42.30%44.30%46.30%48.30%Data43.18%43.20%49.02%52.06%53.54%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=5.30%54.40%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The OSES relies heavily on its partnership SourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spec10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate7,656 SY 2017-18 Regulatory ARegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table52.10%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a regProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY Required OPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFFFY20132014201520162017Target =Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The OSES relies heavily on its partnership FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your finala. Children with IEPs9,9329,7149,7128,9898,3388,0708,364b. IEPs in regular assessmentc. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations4,2235,0095,0244,2913,6913,4211,527fData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS185; Data9,7158,9958,3408,0718,032b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations3,6983,15,9825,2984,5694,1031,432f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards5FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumbNo SlippageRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessmMonitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults indicator: Participation and performance 3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAElementary/MiddBHigh SchoolXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AElementary/Middle2015Target >=70.00%9.31%10.69%20.00%30.00%AE9.95%BHigh School2015Target >=70.00%39.83%41.06%42.56%42.56%BHigh School41.06%Actual3Group Group NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AElementary/Middle2015Target >=70.00%13.32%Actual41.66%17.68%13.32%12.37%13.46%BHigh School2015Target >=70.00%57.96%52.55%52.55%33.55%25.77%TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Elementary/Middle40.00%40.00%ReadingB >=High School44.06%44.06%MathA >=Elementary/Middle40.32%40.32%MathB >=High School57.05%57.5%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The OSES relies heavily on its partnership FFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your finala. Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assigned9,8909c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient againData Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175; Data9,6378,9318,2587,9487,660b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodations scored 347243109102377f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standards scored at GroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was as36.89%44.06%35.09%Did Not Meet TargetSlippageGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if BHigh SchoolIn 2014, Act No. 200 amended Section 59-18-325 of the 1976 Code by addingFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received FFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageAElementary/Middle54,3218,45013.46%40.32%15Regulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) mMonitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults Indicator: Rates of suspension and expuls20095.68%FFY20132014201520162017Target =63.25%63.25%63.263.25%Data63.25%59.81%63.44%61.42%58.85%C12013Target >=89.25%89.25%89.25%89.26%89.26%91.20%88.90%C22013Target >=77.21%77.21%77.21%77.22%77.22%C277.21%Data77.21%76.42%77.7TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=88.47%88.47%Target A2 >=66.18%66.18%Target B1 >=86.15%86.15%Target B2 >=63.27%63.27%Target C1 >=89.27%89.27%Target C2 >=77.23%77.23%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The OSES relies heavily on its partnership Number of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve fun0.00%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearerc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers bd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged pNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectationNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve fun0.00%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearerc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers bd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged pNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectationNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve funb. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to fc. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers bd. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-age. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged pNumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectationPartReasons for slippage, if applicableA1In FFY 2011, SC Part C changed eligibility tA2In FFY 2011, SC Part C changed eligibility to become restrictive when this policy cB1In FFY 2011, SC Part C changed eligibility to become restrictive when this policy cC1In FFY 2011, SC Part C changed eligibility to become restrictive when this policy cC2In FFY 2011, SC Part C changed eligibility to become restrictive when this policy cDoes the State include in the numerator and denominator only children who received spDid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (CO 7 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEStates are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centers Historical DataBaseline 201384.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=84.00%84.00%84.50%84.50%85.00%Data84.00%80.16%86.67%84.92%93.49%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=85.00%85.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools faciFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage84586793.49%85.00%97.46%Met TaWas sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliaIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, provide a copy of the survey.Parent Survey Form - Final Survey QuestionsThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics of If no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future tRepresentativeness: To determine whether or not the data represent the demographics oIf the State has established a minimum n and/or cell size requirement, the State may 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 requireNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findings 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP ResponseOSEP cannot determine whether the data are valid and reliable. Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of racFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requireNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups Define disproportionate representation. Please specify in your definition: 1) the c0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Findings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018 (InstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEAFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.65%99.61%99.52%99.65%99.94%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluateFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage21,90421,84899.94%100%99.74%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)All fifty-six students 121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifiCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of 11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance (greater than 0% actual target dPercent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are fromFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.73%99.72%99.73%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referrec. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by their d. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their thirf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services beyNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 who The Office of Special Education Services (OSES) collects data from the statewide spec0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 20Historical DataBaseline200998.92%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data80.23%96.60%88.82%91.90%90.48%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain eacFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage34235390.48%100%96.88%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageWhat iIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its data fIf no, please explainFederal regulations require postsecondary planning at age 16 butFindings of Noncompliance Subsequently CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correcte00FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verified that the source of noncompliance is correctly impleme13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance (greater than 0% actual target dEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been en14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2013Target >=15.11A15.11%Data15.11%25.55%22.82%26.21%30.87%B2013Target >=43.20%43.20%44.00%45.00%46.00%43.20%53.64%56.85%57.36%61.04%C2013Target >=50.24%54.00%57.00%60.00%62.00%C50.24%Data76.44%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=18.00%25.00%Target B >=47.00%50.00%Target C >=64.00%75.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The OSES relies heavily on its partnership 1,4241. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year o2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving h3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or train4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of leaNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary s3481,42430.87%18.00%24.44%Met TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher education or comPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same definiWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?YESIf yes, attach a copy of the surveyIndicator 14 - Survey Questions w Accessibility ReInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are representatProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)The state contracted wi SessionsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: EfSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process ComplaSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Compla12Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State's dThe OSES relies heavily on its partnership with the South Carolina Advisory Council oFFY20132014201520162017Target >=60.00%60.00%60.00%37.50%40.00%Data61.54%42.86%77.78%37.50%60.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=42.50%42.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through 3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlipnstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective GeSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequestsSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Requests0SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Request2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints2Select yes if theTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The OSES relies heavily on its partnership FFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%Data100.00%0.00%50.00%50.00%.00%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target64.00%100.00%64.00%100.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for tName: Rebecca DavisTitle: Director, Office of Special Education ServicesEmail: rcdavi 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80937 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