2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B — West Virginia
OSEP Response to SPP/APR
PDF2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B — West 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 W. Clayton Burch
S tate Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
1900 Kanawha Boulevard East, State Capitol Complex - Building 6, Room 358
Charleston , West Virginia 25305
Dear Superintendent Burch :
I am writing to advise you of the U.S. Department of E ducation’s (Department) 2020
determination under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The
Department has determined that West Virginia 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 determinati on 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 Educatio n Programs (OSEP) is continuing to use both results data and
compliance 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 parti cipation 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 CWD who drop ped ou t.
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 the State is requi red 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 indic ator.
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 Sta te’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 calculate the State’s “Timely State Complaint Decisions” and
“Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions” scores in the Compliance Matrix .
As noted abo ve, the State’s 20 20 determination is Meets Requirements. A State’s 20 20 RDA
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
g rant 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 it s SSIP and its efforts to improve results for students
with disabilities. We 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, 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 — West Virginia
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 Same data as used for reporting to the Department of Education (Department) under TiFFY20132014201520162017Target >=63.49%67.08%70.67%74.26%78.20%Data62.09%70.25%69.23%76.85%75.68%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=79.50%80.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholdeSourceDateDescriptionData SY 2017-18 Cohorts for Regulatory Adjusted-Cohort Graduation Rate (EDFacts file spe10/02/2019Number of youth with IEPs eligible to graduate2,753 SY 2017-18 Regulatory Regulatory four-year adjusted-cohort graduation rate table76.86%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)Requirements for earniOPTION 2:Use same data source and measurement that the State used to report in its FFFY20132014201520162017Target =Overall95.00%95.00%MathA >=Overall95.00%95.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholder inpuFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Reading AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameNumber of Children with IEPsNumRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults indicator: Participation and performance3Grade 4Grade 5Grade 6Grade 7Grade 8Grade 9Grade 10Grade 11Grade 12HSAOverallXXXXXXXXXXXHistorical Data: Reading GroupGroup NameBaseline FFY20132014201520162017AOveral39.90%46.90%53.90%13.90%AOverall12.79%Actual16.12%15.60%14.85%13.62%12.79%Historical2017AOverall2017Target >=35.70%42.30%48.90%55.50%10.90%AOverall11.31%Actual17.56%11.TargetsGroupGroup Name20182019ReadingA >=Overall17.20%20.50%MathA >=Overall14.30%17.80%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholder inpuFFY 2018 SPP/APR Data: Math AssessmentGroupGroup NameChildren with IEPs who receivedRegulatory InformationThe SEA, (or, in the case of a district-wide assessment, LEA) Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LREResults Indicator: Rates of suspension and expul20173.51%FFY20132014201520162017Target =63.00%63.00%63.63.70%Data63.49%63.44%63.06%59.34%62.79%C12012Target >=79.00%79.00%79.00%79.00%79.5080.75%84.48%C22012Target >=78.00%78.00%78.00%78.00%78.50%C278.30%Data77.90%77.87%76.TargetsFFY20182019Target A1 >=79.00%79.50%Target A2 >=68.0%68.00%Target B1 >=79.00%79.50%Target B2 >=64.00%64.00%Target C1 >=80.00%80.50%Target C2 >=79.00%80.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholder inpuNumber of childrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve fu1.37%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearec. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-ae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageA1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatioNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve fu1.28%b. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearec. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-ae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageB1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatioNumber of ChildrenPercentage of Childrena. Preschool children who did not improve fub. Preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to c. Preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers d. Preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-ae. Preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged NumeratorDenominatorFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippageC1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectatioPartReasons for slippage, if applicableA27A2 slipped from 64.34% to 63.32% (Just undB27B2 slipped from 62.79% to 61.51%Many factors contribute to a child's social-emoDoes the State include in the numerator and denominator only children who received sDid you use the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Form (C 7 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided targets for FFY 2019 for this indicator, and OSStates are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centersHistorical DataBaseline 200528.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target >=32.00%33.00%35.00%36.00%38.00%Data31.63%39.68%34.37%36.67%38.04%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=38.00%38.50%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of respondent parents who report schools facFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage1,2603,34838.04%38.00%37.63%DWas sampling used? YESIf yes, has your previously-approved sampling plan changed?NODescribe the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?NOThe demographics of the parents responding are representative of the demographics ofIf no, describe the strategies that the State will use to ensure that in the future The WVDE measures Indicator B-8 (the percent of parents with a child receiving specStates are not required to report on underrepresentation.If the State has establisheFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 groupsThe OSE conducted desk audits to review an updated sample of student files from each0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings ofFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correcte9 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone9 - OSEP Response9 - Required ActionsIndicator 10: Disproportionate RepresentatConsider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of raFFY20132014201520162017Target 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 requirIf yes, the State may only include, in both the numerator and the denominator, distrMinimum Cell Requirement: All districts were included in the data analyses for each 0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings oFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correcte10 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone10 - OSEP Response10 - Required Actionsicator 11: Child FindInstructions andInstructionsIf data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEFFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data97.28%96.33%97.24%98.57%97.46%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data(a) Number of children for whom parental consent to evaFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage11,77211,38497.46%100%96.70%Did Not Meet TState database that includes data for the entire reporting yearDescribe the method u343301FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifActions taken if noncompliance not correctedThe 1 district that did not have 3 conseFFY 2016321FFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifiFFY 2016Findings of Noncompliance Not Yet Verified as CorrectedActions taken if noncetermined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was dete200590.40%FFY20132014201520162017Target100%100%100%100%100%Data100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%100.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Dataa. Number of children who have been served in Part C and referrc. Number of those found eligible who have an IEP developed and implemented by theird. Number for whom parent refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation ore. Number of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their thif. Number of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services beNumerator(c)Denominator(a-b-d-e-f)FFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippagePercent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3 whoThe lead agency for Part C, WV Birth to Three (WVBTT), is the Department of Health a0000Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings ofFindings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedFindings Not Yet Verified as Correcte12 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone12 - OSEP Response12 - Required Actionsicator 13: Secondary TransitionInstruHistorical DataBaseline200995.00%FFY20132014201520162017Target 100%100%100%100%100%Data98.41%96.86%94.75%99.67%99.15%TargetsFFY20182019Target 100%100%FFY 2018 SPP/APR DataNumber of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contaiFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlippage58258599.15%100%99.49%Did Not Meet TargetNIf yes, did the State choose to include youth at an age younger than 16 in its data If yes, at what age are youth included in the data for this indicator15Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)WV Policy 2419 was rev2200FFY 2017 Findings of Noncompliance Verified as CorrectedDescribe how the State verifCorrection of Findings of Noncompliance Identified Prior to FFY 2017Year Findings of13 - Prior FFY Required ActionsNone13 - OSEP ResponseBecause the State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2018, the State must reEnrolled in higher educationas used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been e14 - Indicator DataHistorical DataBaseline FFY20132014201520162017A2009Target >=15.0A19.49%Data15.54%13.65%16.78%19.22%16.42%B2009Target >=49.00%50.00%51.00%52.00%53.0052.50%44.25%51.44%58.88%58.62%C2009Target >=64.00%65.00%66.00%67.00%68.00%C63.57%Dat69.31%FFY 2018 TargetsFFY20182019Target A >=20.00%21.00%Target B >=54.00%55.00%Target C >=69.00%70.00%Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholder inpu1. Number of respondent youth who enrolled in higher education within one year of le2. Number of respondent youth who competitively employed within one year of leaving 3. Number of respondent youth enrolled in some other postsecondary education or trai4. Number of respondent youth who are in some other employment within one year of leNumber of respondent youthNumber of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary 3161,75316.42%20.00%18.03%Did Not Meet TargetNo SlippageB. Enrolled in higher educatPartReasons for slippage, if applicableBTo comply with regulations, the West Virginia Office of Special Education and StudenNOWas a survey used? YESIf yes, is it a new or revised survey?Include the State's analyses of the extent to which the response data are representaProvide additional information about this indicator (optional)FFY19 Target: West Vir14 - State Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC Indicator 15: Resolution SessiTarget Range not usedPrepopulated DataSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Compl10SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section C: Due Process Com3.1(a) Number resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements9Select yes Targets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholder inpuFFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%Data84.62%100.00%100.00%100.0%90.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=75.00%75.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data3.1(a) Number resolutions sessions resolved through3.1 Number of resolutions sessionsFFY 2017 DataFFY 2018 TargetFFY 2018 DataStatusSlinstructions and MeasurementMonitoring Priority: Effective GSourceDateDescriptionDataSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation RequestSY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Request4SY 2018-19 EMAPS IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey; Section B: Mediation Reques2.1.b.i Mediations agreements not related to due process complaints0Select yes if thTargets: Description of Stakeholder Input Please see attachment for stakeholder inpuFFY20132014201520162017Target >=75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%75.00%Data84.62%100.00%90.00%61.54%75.00%TargetsFFY20182019Target >=75.00%75.00%FFY 2018 SPP/APR Data2.1.a.i Mediation agreements related to due process complaints2.1.b.i Mediation agreements not related to due process complaints2.1 Number of mediNone16 - OSEP ResponseThe State provided a target for FFY 2019 for this indicator, aDC obat.Document.DC CertificationInstrucED Attachments EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC EMBED Acrobat.Document.DC
(Grant Year 2018–2019 — Issued June 25, 2020)
How the department made determinations
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-80957 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