2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B — Virginia
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Virginia
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 James Lane, Ph.D.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond , Virgina 23218
Dear Superintendent Lane :
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 Virgina meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of the
IDEA. This determination is based on the totality of the State’s data and 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 - Driv en 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 (sc hool
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/A PR 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 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 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 attachments:
(1) the State’s RDA Matrix;
(2) the HTDMD document;
(3) a spreadsheet entitled “20 20 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 entitled “Dispute Resolution 201 8 - 20 1 9 ,” which includes the IDEA section
618 data that OSEP used to c alculate 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 RDA
Determination is Meets Requirement s 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 2 0 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. We have carefully reviewed and respon ded 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, bu t 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 performance 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 o n the SEA’s
website . 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 all State
attachments that are accessible in accordance with Section 508 of the Reha bilitation Act
of 1973 ; and
(2) will be accessible to the public via the ed.gov website.
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 con tinue 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,
Lau rie VanderPloeg
Director
Office of Special Education Programs
cc: State Director of Special Education
View File
2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — Virginia
State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report:Part BforSTATE FORMULA GRANT PRProvide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary anHow and where the State reported to the public on the FFY17 performance of each LEInstructionsSampling is not allowed.Describe the results of the State's examinatioFFY20132014201520162017Target >=54.21%56.39%57.84%52.00%56.00%Data51.54%53.15%52.61%53.86%59.80%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=56.00%61.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input During the development of Virginia's FFYSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file s10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate11,787 SY 2017-18 RegulatoRegulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table61.24%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DNumber of youth with IEPs in the current year's adjusted cohort graduating with a Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)1 - Prior FFY RequirOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in itsFFY20132014201520162017Target =Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input During the development of Virginia's FFYFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEAResults indicator: Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewidGrade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOvera66.00%66.00%41.00%AOverall42.80%Actual44.40%44.64%48.29%49.91%49.93%Historical DatAOverall2011Target >=49.00%57.00%65.00%65.00%43.00%AOverall39.80%Actual44.46%49.28GroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall46.00%51.00%MathA >=Overall48.00%46.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input During the development of Virginia's FFYFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who recFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEAState discipline data, including State's analysis of State's Discipline data colleFFY20132014201520162017Target =79.00%79.00%70.00%72.00%74.00%Data85.11%87.99%79.22%80.28%85.52%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=76.00%78.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as Was sampling used? NOWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics Include the State's analyses of the extent to which the demographics of the parent8 - Required ActionsIndicator 9: Disproportionate RepresentationInstructions and Select yes if this indicator is not applicable.NOHistorical DataBaseline20160.00%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 requNumber of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic grouProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findin0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correc9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of FFY20132014201520162017Target 0%0%0%0%0%Data0.00%1.52%0.76%1.72%1.72%TargetsFFY20182019Target 0%0%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataHas the state established a minimum n and/or cell size requIf yes, the State may only include, in both the numerator and the denominator, disThe VDOE definition of disproportionate representation for Indicator 10 is as fo2200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verYear Findings of Noncompliance Were IdentifiedFindings of Noncompliance Not Yet Ve10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported lePercent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are from State monitoFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.74%98.85%98.95%99.36%99.25%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaluFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage34,31433,92099.25%100%98.85%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippDescribe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State's m24724700FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 11 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone11 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.InstructionsIf data are fFFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data99.72%99.54%99.46%99.53%99.56%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and b. Number of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility wac. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by thed. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation e. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their tf. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services Numerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 wAll school districts submitted data for Indicator 12 through a secure web-based ap121200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP ResponseThe State reported that it ve12 - Required ActionsIndicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstructions and Measureme200998.09%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.51%98.76%99.17%99.37%99.71%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain FFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage8,5198,58399.71%100%99.25%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippagProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)Correction of Findin242400FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings 13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported le13 - Required ActionsIndicator 14: Post-School OutcomesInstructions and MeasuremeOption 1: Use the same definition as used to report in the FFY 2015 SPP/APR, i.e.,Historical DataBaseline FFY2132014201520162017A2009Target >=34.00%34.00%35.00%35.A31.93%Data35.13%34.13%34.45%32.85%32.57%B2009Target >=62.00%62.00%62.75%62.75%63.63.24%64.81%63.10%64.08%C2009Target >=71.00%71.00%71.50%71.50%72.00%C63.32%Data71.FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=36.00%35.00%Target B >=63.50%65.00%Target C >=72.00%72.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input During the development of Virginia's FFY6,7301. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one yea2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leavin3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or tr4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of Number of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondar2,3476,73032.57%36.00%34.87%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher edPlease select the reporting option your State is using: Option 1: Use the same defWas 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 represenProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)14 - Prior FFY Requi SessionsInstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority:SourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process ComSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com8Select yes if the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State'sDuring the development of Virginia's FFY2018 Part B State Performance Plan/Annual FFY20132014201520162017Target >=45.00%50.00%50.00%5.00%50.00%Data48.57%60.61%61.76%60.29%32.26%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=50.00%50.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved throu3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts thatPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reque107SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Re2.1.a.i Mediations agreements related to due process complaints3SY 2018-19 EMAPS I11/11/20192.1.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's FFY20132014201520162017Target >=76.00% - 80.00%76.0% - 80.00%76.00% - 80.00%76.00% - 80.00%76.00% - 80.0Data78.65%76.47%82.30%76.15%77.01%TargetsFFY2018 (low)2018 (high)2019 (low)2019 (high)Target76.00%80.00%76.00%80.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaintProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)16 - Prior FFY RequiName and title of the individual certifying the accuracy of the State's submission 55Part B
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80953 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