2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B — Texas
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Texas
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 Mike Morath
Commissioner
Texas Education Agency
1701 North Congress Avenue
Austin , Texas 78701
Dear Commissioner Morath :
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 Texas needs assistance in implementing the req uirements 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 — Texas
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 >=80.00%83.00%88.00%88.00%88.50%Data77.80%77.50%78.20%77.87%77.41%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=88.50%90.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The TCISC and CAC stakeholder groups pDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs graduating with a regular diploma23,033 SY 2Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate29,582 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Adjus77.86%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequOPTION 1:States must report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (agFFY20132014201520162017Target =95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%95.00%AOverall99.00%Actual98.94%98.GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The TCISC and CAC stakeholder groups pFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LA. Indicator 3A ReservedB. Participation rate for children with IEPsC. Profici4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOver91.00%95.00%AOverall23.04%Actual59.21%36.68%34.73%34.42%23.04%Historical Data: MAOverall2017Target >=79.00%83.00%87.00%91.00%95.00%AOverall25.60%Actual60.74%38.GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall98.00%26.00%MathA >=Overall98.00%28.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The TCISC and CAC stakeholder groups pFFY 2018 Data Disaggregation from EDFactsInclude the disaggregated data in your 43,83146,20546,45944,15841,3739,78069,182b. IEPs in regular assessment with no c. IEPs in regular assessment with accommodations scored at or above proficient Data Source: SY 2018-19 Assessment Data Groups - Math (EDFacts file spec FS175;46,43244,08140,75740,56553,227b. IEPs in regular assessment with no accommodatio5,9302,8622,4464,9236,295f. IEPs in alternate assessment against alternate standGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency wGroupGroup NameReasons for slippage, if applicableAOverallThe state can attribute slippage in reading proficiency to multiple compounding Children with IEPs who received a valid score and a proficiency was assignedNumbPublic Reporting InformationProvide links to the page(s) where you provide publiData SourceState discipline data, including State's analysis of State's DiscipliFFY20132014201520162017Target =57.00%57.0052.00%Data57.03%56.63%55.91%57.61%58.51%C12008Target >=81.00%82.00%83.00%84.00%884.73%84.86%C22008Target >=72.00%72.00%73.00%73.00%74.00%C273.60%Data72.84%71.95TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=85.00%86.00%Target A2 >=63.0%63.00%Target B1 >=85.00%86.00%Target B2 >=58.00%58.00%Target C1 >=85.00%86.00%Target C2 >=74.00%74.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The TCISC and CAC stakeholder groups pNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improv0.61%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 improv0.63%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 expectPartReasons for slippage, if applicableA2State data show the number of 3-5-year-B2State data show the number of 3-5-year-old children disabilities eligible for Does the State include in the numerator and denominator only children who receivDid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary For 7 - OSEP Response The State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, aInclude the State's analysis of the extent to which the demographics of the pareTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input The TCISC and CAC stakeholder groups pFFY20132014201520162017Target >=78.00%79.00%79.00%8.00%80.00%Data80.01%81.02%77.99%77.99%76.40%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=81.00%81.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schoolsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage3,8064,96276.40%81.00%76.Was 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 demographicInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the demographics of the pare8 - Required Actions8 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC EMBEDSelect yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHistorical DataBaseline20160.00FFY20132014201520162017Target 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 Number of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grThe State's definition of disproportionate representation is described by its me0000Correction 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 Response9 - Required Actions9 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.DoStates are not required to report on underrepresentation.If the State has establFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requirement? (yes/no)YESIWere all races and ethnicities included in the review? YESDefine disproportiona0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingFindings Not Yet Verified as Corrected10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required ActionsIndicator 11: Child FindInstructions andInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to selecFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.94%99.55%99.73%99.02%99.77%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to(b) Number of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or StateWhat is the State's timeline for initial evaluations? If the State-established t313100FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State vCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year FindingFFY 2016110FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State ve11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported ned to be eligible for early intervention services unde200777.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.71%99.48%99.82%99.50%99.92%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and re1,493c. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implementedd. 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 chiAccount for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, e, or f. Indi8800FFY 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 ResponseBecause the State reported 12 - Required Actions12 - State AttachmentsBED Acrobat.Document.DC EMBBaseline200997.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data99.74%99.84%99.58%99.79%99.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that coNumber of youth with IEPs aged 16 and aboveFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 Do the State's policies and procedures provide that public agencies must meet thFindings of Noncompliance IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Verified as Correc151500FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State v13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State musI.DefinitionsEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C meansIf the analysis shows that the response data are not representative of the demogTarget >=26.60%28.00%28.00%29.00%29.00%A26.00%Data26.77%24.97%24.39%21.41%18.31%2009Target >=60.00%61.00%61.0%62.00%62.00%B59.00%Data61.55%54.21%57.38%53.69%50C2009Target >=71.60%73.00%74.00%76.00%78.00%C72.00%Data71.65%67.36%68.52%66.67%6FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=30.00%30.00%Target B >=63.00%63.00%Target C >=80.00%80.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input The TCISC and CAC stakeholder groups p3,6931. 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 secondA. Enrolled in higher education (1)6043,69318.31%30.00%16.36%Did Not Meet Target93.31%Met TargetNo SlippagePartReasons for slippage, if applicableASeveral factors may be attributed to the overall slippage for 14A. Surveys can Please select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same dIf 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?NOInclude the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are represProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)14 - Prior FFY Req14 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC EMBED Acrobat.Document.DPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process C3.1 Number of resolution sessions139SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process CSelect yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'Historical DataBaseline20052.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=25.00%25.00%25.00% - 30.00%Data28.70%46.85%47.89%35.63%31.78%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target25.00%30.00%25.00%30.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through settlement agreements3.1 NumNone15 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicato16 - Indicator DataSelect yes to use target rangesTarget Range is usedPrepopulatSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1 Mediations held223SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation ReqSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Req2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints66Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'FFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%75.00% - 80.00%Data79.79%79.55%75.22%76.50%75.81%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target75.00%80.00%75.00%80.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation 16 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets Choose the appropriate selection and complete all the certification information DC obat.Document.DC EMBED Acrobat.
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80944 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