How the Department Made Determinations — Part B 2021 (Entities)
How the Department Made Determinations – Part B, 2021 (Entities)
PDFView PDF
How the Department Made Determinations – Part B, 2021 (Entities)
H OW
THE D EPARTMENT
M
ADE D ETERMINATIONS
UNDER SECTION 616( D) OF THE
I
NDIVIDUALS WITH D ISABILITIES E DUCATION A CT IN 2021 :
F
REELY ASSOCIATED STATES , OUTLYING AREAS , AND THE
B
UREAU OF INDIAN E DUCATION
P
ART B
REVISED 06 /2 4/2021
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
2
INTRODUCTION
In 2021 , the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and
compliance data in making our determination for each freely associated S tate, outlying area, and the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) (Entities) under section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act ( IDEA). We considered the totality of the information we have about a n Entity, including
information related to the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide
assessments; exiting data on CWD who dropped out and CWD who graduated with a regular high school
diploma
1; the Entity ’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 201 9 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report
(SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Department -imposed
Specific Conditions on the Entity’s grant award under Part B; the impact of COVID -19 on the State’s
ability to collect and report valid and reliable data; and other issues related to the Entity’s compliance
with the IDEA. Below is a detailed description of how the Office of Special Education Programs (O SEP)
evaluated the Entities’ data using the Results Driven Accountability (RDA) Matrix.
The RDA Matrix consists of: 1. a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on SPP/APR Compliance Indicators and other
compliance 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 the Compliance Score and the Results Score; and
5. the Entity’s Determination .
The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:
A. 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
B. 2021 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
C. 2021 RDA Percentage and 2020 Determination
In making the 2021 determinations based on FFY 2019 APR data, OSEP specifically considered whether
and to what extent States and Entities included in the narrative for each impacted indicator: (1) a
description of the impact on data completeness, validity, and/or reliability for the indicator; (2) an
explanation of how COVID -19 specifically impacted that State’s or Entity’s ability to collect or verify the
data for the indicator; and (3) a description of any steps the State or Entity took to mitigate the impact
1 When providing exiting data under section 618 of the IDEA, Entities are required to report on the number of students with
disabilities who exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma. These students meet the
same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities . As explained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv), in
effect June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma means the standard high school diploma awarded to the
preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned with State standards, or a hi gher diploma, except that a regular
high school diploma shall not be aligned to the alternate academic achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E)
of the ESEA. A regular high school diploma does not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma, such as a general
equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential. ”
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
3
of COVID
-19 on the data collection and verification. OSEP appreciates States’ and Entities’ level of
transparency regarding the impact of COVID -19 on the data reported in the FFY 2019 SPP/APR. Fo r 2021
determinations, no State or Entity received a determination of “Needs Intervention” due solely to data
impacted by COVID -19.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
4
A. 2021 P ART B C OMPLIANCE M ATRIX
In making each Entity ’s 2021 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, refl ecting the
following data:
1. The Entity ’s F F Y 2019 data for applicable Part B Compliance Indicators
2 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
(including whether the Entity reported valid and reliable data for each indicator); and whether
the Entity demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance it had identified in FFY 201 8
under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under sec tions 616 and 618 of the
IDEA ;
3. The Entity ’s FFY 2019 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA , for the timeliness of State
complaint and due process hearing decisions;
4. Longstanding Noncompliance:
The Department considered:
a. Whether the Department imposed Speci fic Conditions on the Entity’s F F Y 2 0 20 IDEA Part
B grant award and those Speci fic Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2021
determination, and the number of years for which the Entity’s Part B grant award has
been subject to Specific Conditions; and
b. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 201 7 or earlier by
either the Department or the Entity that the Entity has not yet corrected.
Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
The Compliance Matrix indicates a score of 0, 1, or 2, for each of the compliance indicators in item one
above and for each of the additional factors listed in items two through four above. Using the
cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actu al points
the Entity received in its scoring under these factors, the Compliance Matrix reflects a Compliance Score,
which is combined with the Results Score to calculate the Entity ’s RDA Percentage and Determination.
2 The U.S. Virgin Islands report data for Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth
of the Northern Mariana Islands report data for Indicators 11, 12, and 13. The Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic
of the Marshall Islands, the Republic of Palau, and the BIE report data on Indicators 11 and 13.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
5
Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
In the attached Entity-specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a n Entity received points as follows for
each of the Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
3:
• Two points, if either:
o The Entity ’s F F Y 2 019 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least
95%
4 compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 5%
compliance)
5; or
o The Entity ’s FFY 2019 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least
90% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 10%
compliance); and the Entity identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY
2018 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance
identified in FFY 2018 for the indicator. Such full correction is indicated in the matrix
with a “Yes”) in the “Full Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY
2018 ” column.
6
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2019 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at
least 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 25% compliance),
and the Entity did not meet either of the criteria above for two points.
• Zero points, under any of the following circumstan ces:
o The Entity ’s FFY 2019 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for
Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
o The Entity ’s F F Y 2019 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;
7 or
o The Entity did not report FFY 2019 data for the indicator.
8
3 A notation of “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in the “Performance” column for an indicator denotes that the indicator is not applicable to that
particular Entity. The points for that indicator are not included in the denominator for the matrix.
4 In determining whether an Entity has met the 95% compliance criterion for Indicators 11, 12, and 13, the Department will round up from
94.5% (but no lower) to 95%. In determining whether an Entity has met the 90% compliance criterion for these indictors, the D epartment
will round up from 89.5% (but no lower) to 90%. In addition, in determining whether an Entity has met the 75% compliance criterion for
these indicators, the Department will round up from 74.5% (but no lower) to 75%. Similarly, in determining whether an Entity has met the
5% compliance criterion for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, the Department will round down from 5.49% (but no higher) to 5%. In det ermining
whether an Entity has met the 10% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round down from 10.49 % (but no higher)
to 10%. In addition, in determining whether an Entity has met the 25% compliance criterion for these indicators, the Department will round
down from 25.49% (but no higher) to 25%. The Department will also apply the rounding rules to the c ompliance criteria for 95% and 75% for:
(1.) the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
(2.) the Entity’s FFY 2018 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and d ue process hearing
decisions.
5 For Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, a very high level of compliance is generally at or below 5%. 6 A “No” in that column denotes that the Entity has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 201 8 for whic h the
Entity has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the Entity did not identify any
findings of noncompliance in FFY 201 8 for the indicator.
7 If an Entity’s FFY 201 9 data for any compliance indica tor are not valid and reliable, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with
a corresponding score of 0. The explanation of why the Entity’s data are not valid and reliable is contained in the OSEP Resp onse to the
Entity’s FFY 201 9 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool .
8 If an Entity reported no FFY 201 9 d ata for any compliance indicator (unless the indicator is not applicable to the Entity), the matrix so
indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
6
Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate Entity -Reported Data
In the attached Entity -specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a n Enti ty received points as follows for
Timely and Accurate Entity -Reported Data
9:
• Two points, if the OSEP -calculated percentage reflects at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the OSEP -calculated percentage reflects at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the OSEP -calculated percentage reflects less than 75% compliance.
Scoring of the Matrix for Timely State Complaint Decisions and
Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions
In the attached Entity-specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix , an Entity received points as follows for
timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearing decisions , as reported by the Entity
under section 618 of the IDEA :
• Two points, if the Entity ’s F F Y 2019 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the Entity’s F F Y 2019 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the Entity ’s F F Y 2019 data reflect less than 75% compliance.
• Not Applicable (N/A ), if the Entity ’s data reflect less than 100% compliance, and there were
fewer than ten State complaint decisions or ten due process hearing decisions.
Scoring of the Matrix for Longstanding Noncompliance
(Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncomplia nce and Specific
Conditions)
In the attached Entity -specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a n Entity received points as follows for the
Long-Standing Noncompliance component:
• Two points, if the Entity has:
o No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the Entity , in FFY 201 7 or
earlier; and
o No Speci fic Conditions on its FFY 20 20 grant award that are in effect at the time of the
2021 determination.
9 OSEP used the Part B Timely and Accurate State -Reported Data Rubric to award points to Entities based on the timeliness and accuracy of
their sections 616 and 618 data. A copy of the rubric is contained in the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 201 9 SPP/APR in the EMAPS
SPP/APR reporting tool. On page two of the rubric, entitled “ APR and 618 -Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data,” Entities are given one
point for each indicator with valid and reliable data and five points for SPP/APRs that were submitted timely. The total points for valid and
reliable SPP/APR data and timely SPP/APR submission are added together to form the APR Grand Total. On page t hree of the rubric, the
Entity’s section 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on section 618 data timeliness, completeness, and e dit checks
from EDFacts. On page four of the rubric, the percentage of Timely and Accurate State -Reported Data is calculated by adding the 618 Data
Grand Total to the APR Grand Total and dividing this sum by the total number of points available for the entire rubric. This percentage is
insert ed into the Compliance Matrix .
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
7
•
One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
o The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the Entity , in
FFY 201 7, FFY 2016 , and/or FFY 2015 , for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated
correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity ’s FFY 2019 SPP/APR in the EMAPS
SPP/APR reporti ng too l; for specific information regarding these remaining findings of
noncompliance); and/or
o The Department has imposed Speci fic Conditions on the Entity’s F F Y 2020 Part B grant
award and those Spec ific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2021 de termination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
o The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the Entity , in
FFY 201 4 or earlier, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the
OSEP Res ponse to the Entity’s FFY 201 9 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool
for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
o The Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 201 8,
2019 , and 20 20) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Speci fic Conditions are in effect at
the time of the 2021 determination.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
8
B. 202 1 P ART B R ESULTS M ATRIX
In making each Entity ’s 2021 determination, the Department used a Results Matrix reflecting the
following data:
1. The percentage of CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments across all available grade
levels (3 through 8);
2. The percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out; and
3. The percentage of CWD exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma.
The Results Elements for participation in regular Statewide assessments are scored separately for
reading and math . When combined with the exiting data, there are a total of four Results Elements for
the Entities. The Results Elements are defined as follows:
Percentage of CWD Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
Due to the circumstances created by the COVID -19 pandemic, and resulting school closures,
the Entities did not have any FFY 2019 data for this element. Percentage of CWD Exiting
School by Dropping Out
This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, ages 14 through 21, who exited school by dropping out.
The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under
IDEA Part B, repor ted in the exit reason category dropped out fo r SYs 2018-201 9, 201 7-201 8, and 201 6-
2017 , by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the six
exit -from -both -special education-and -school categories (graduated with a regular high school diploma,
graduated with an alternate diploma, received a certificate , dropped out , reached maximum age for
services, and died) for SYs 201 8-201 9, 201 7-201 8, and 201 6-2017 , then multiplying the result by 100
10.
(Data source: EDFacts SY s 2018-2019, 2017 -2018, and 201 6-2017 ; data extracted 5/27/20, 5/29/19,
5/30/18)
Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Graduating with a Regular High School Diploma
This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, ages 14 through 21 , who exited school by graduating with
a regular high school diploma. The percentage was calculated by dividing the number of students ages
14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the exit reason category graduated with a regular
high school di ploma for SYs 201 8-201 9, 201 7-201 8, and 201 6-2017 , by the total number of students ages
14 through 21 served under IDEA Part B, reported in the six exit -from -both -special education-and -school
categories ( graduated with a regular high school diploma, graduated with an alternate diploma, received
a certificate , dropped out , reached maximum age for services, and died), exiting school in SYs 201 8-201 9,
201 7-201 8,and 201 6-201 7, then multiplying the result by 100. (Data source: EDFacts SY s 2018 -2019,
2017 -2018 , and 201 6-201 7; data extracted 5/27/20, 5/29/19, 5/30/18)
10 The Department will make these calculations using unsuppressed data. However, due to privacy concerns the Department
has chosen to suppress calculations made with small cell counts in the public document.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
9
Scoring of the Results Matrix
In the attached Entity-specific 2021 Part B Results Matrix, an Entity received poin ts as follows for the
Results Elements:
• Each Entity ’s participation rates on the regular Statewide assessments reflects “N/A” on the Results
Matrix. Each State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank -
ordered and the top, middle, and bottom third s determined using tertiles
11. The exiting percentages
for the Entities were calculated using the percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out in SYs
2018 -2019 , 2017 -2018, and 201 6-2017 , and points were as signed. T he percentages that fell in the
top tertile of States ( i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, percentages that
fell in the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and percentages that fell in the bottom tertile of
States ( i.e. , those with the highest percentage) received a ‘0’.
• Each State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by graduating with a regular high
school diploma were rank -ordered and the top , middle, and bottom thirds determined using tertiles.
The exiting percentages for the Entities were calculated using the percentage of CWD exiting school
by graduating with a regular high school diploma in SYs 2018 -2019, 2017 -2018, and 201 6-2017 , and
points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States ( i.e. , those with the
highest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, percentages that fell in the middle tertile of States
received a ‘1’, and percentages that fell in the bottom tertile of States ( i.e., those with the lowest
percentage) received a ‘0’.
The following table identifies how each of the Results Elements was scored:
Results Elements
RDA
Score=
0
RDA
Score=
1
RDA
Score=
2
Participation Rate of CWD on Regular Statewide Assessments
(reading and math, separately) based on an average of participation
rates across all available grade levels (3 through 8) in which the
assessment was administered . N/A N/A N/A
Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Graduating with a
Regular High School Diploma based on the percentage of CWD
exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma in
SYs 2016 -2017, 2017 -2018, and 201 8-2019 . < 70 70-77 >=78
Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Dropping Out based on the
percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out in SYs 201 6-201 7,
2017 -2018 , and 201 8-201 9. > 19 19-14
View 2021 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports (Entities)
Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2020: Freely Associated States, Outlying Areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education — Part B
Revised 6/24/2021
idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-82867 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 June 29, 2021