# How the Department Made Determinations — Part B 2021

How the Department Made Determinations — Part B, 2021

PDFView PDF

How the Department Made Determinations — Part B, 2021

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:
P
ART B
REVISED 06/ 24/20 21
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 State under section 616(d) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act ( IDEA). We considered the totality of t he information we have about a State,
including information related to the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on regular Statewide
assessments; the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently -administered (school year
(SY) 201 8–2019 ) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); exiting data on CWD who dropped
out and CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma
1; the State’s Federal fiscal year (FFY)
2019 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) ; information from monitoring and
other public information, such as Department -imposed Specific Conditions on the State’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 State compliance with the IDEA . Below is a detailed description of how the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) evaluated States’ data using the Results Driven
Accountability (RDA) Matrix.
The RDA Matrix consists of:
1. a Compliance Matr ix 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 Scor e; and
5. the State’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 R esults Matrix
C. 2021 RDA Percentage and 2021 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 W hen providing exiting data under section 618 of the IDEA, States are required to report on the number of students with disabi lities who
exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma These students meet the same standards for gra duation as
those for students without disabilities. As explained in 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect June 30, 2017, “the te rm regular high school
diploma means the standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is fully aligned wi th State
standards, or a higher diploma, except that a regular high school diploma shall not be aligned to t he alternate academic achievement
standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA. A regular high school diploma does not include a recognized equiva lent 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. F or 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 State’s 202 1 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the
following data:
1. The State’s FFY 201 9 data for Part B Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (including
whether the State reported valid and reliable data for each indicator); and whether the State
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 State under sections 616 and 618 of the
IDEA ;
3. The State’s FFY 201 9 dat a, 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 State’s FFY 20 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 State’s Part B grant award has
been subject to Specific Conditions; and
b. Whe ther there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 201 7 or earlier by
either the Department or the State that the State 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 actual points the State
received in its scoring under these factors, the Compliance Matrix reflects a Compliance Score, which is
combined with the Results Score to calculate the State’s RDA Percentage and Determination.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
5
Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, an d 13
In the attached State -specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for each
of Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13
2:
• Two points, if either:
o The State’s FFY 201 9 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least
95%
3 compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 5%
compliance)
4; or
o The State’s FFY 201 9 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least
90% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 1 0, reflect no greater than 10%
compliance); and the State 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 201 8 for the indicator. Such full c orrection is indicated in the matrix
with a “Yes” in the “Full Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 201 8”
column.
5
• One point, if the State’s FFY 201 9 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 State did not meet either of the criteria above for two points.
• Zero points, under any of the following circumstances:
o The State’s FFY 201 9 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for
Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
o The State’s FFY 201 9 data for the indicator were not valid and reliabl e;
6 or
o The State did not report FFY 201 9 data for the indicator.
7
2 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 State. The points for that indicator are not included i n the denominator for the matrix.
3 In determining whether a State 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 a State has met the 90% complianc e criterion for these indictors , the Department will
round up from 89.5% (but no lower) to 90%. In addition, in determining whether a State 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 a State 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 determining whether
a State 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 a State has met the 25% compliance criterion for these indicator s, the Department will round down from
25.49% (but no higher ) to 25%. The Department will also apply the rounding rules to the compliance criteria for 95% and 75% for: (1) the
timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and (2) the State’s FFY 201 9 d ata, reported
under se ction 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions.
4 For Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, a very high level of compliance is generally at or below 5%. 5 A “N o” in that column denotes that the State has one or more re maining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2018 for which the
State has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the State did not iden tify any
findings of noncompliance in FFY 201 8 for the indic ator.
6 If a State’s FFY 201 9 data for any compliance indicator are not valid and reliable, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a
corresponding score of 0. The explanation of why the State’s data are not valid and reliable is contain ed in the OSEP Response to the State’s
FFY 201 9 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.
7 If a State reported no FFY 201 9 data for any compliance indicator (unless the indicator is not applicable to the State), the matrix so indicates
in the “Perform ance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
6
Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State -Reported Data
In the attached State -specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for
Timely and Accurate S tate-Reported Data
8:
• 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 State-specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for
timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearing decisions, as reported by the State
under section 618 of the IDEA :
• Two points, if the State’s FFY 201 9 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’ s FFY 2019 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 201 9 data reflect less than 75% compliance.
• Not Applicable (N/A), if the State’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 Longs tanding Noncompliance
(Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific
Conditions)
In the attached State -specific 2021 Part B Compliance Matrix, a St ate received points as follows for the
Longs tanding Noncompliance component:
• Two points, if the State has:
o No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, 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.
8 OSEP used the Part B Timely and Accurate State -Reported Data Rubric to award points to States 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 State’s FFY 2019 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,” States are given one
point for each indicator with valid and reli able 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
State’s section 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on section 618 data timeliness, completeness, and edit checks
from EDFacts. On page four of the rubric, t he percentage of Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data is calculated by adding the 618 Data
Grand Tot al to the APR Grand Total and dividing this sum by the total number of points available for the entire rubric. This percentag e is
inserted into the Compliance Matrix.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
7
•
One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
o The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, in
FFY 201 7, FFY 2016 , and/or FFY 201 5, for which the State has not yet demonstrated
correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’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 Speci fic Conditions on the State’s FFY 20 20 Part B grant
award and those Speci fic Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2021 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
o The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by OSEP or the State, in
FFY 201 4 or earlier, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the
OSEP Response to the State’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 State’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 State’s 202 1 determination, the Department used a Results Matrix reflecting the
following data:
1. The percentage of fourth -grade CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments;
2. The percentage of eight h-grade CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments;
3. The percentage of fourth -grade CWD scoring at basic
9 or above on the NAEP;
4. The percentage of fourth -grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
5. The percentage of eighth -grade CWD scoring at basic or above on the NAEP;
6. The percentage of eighth -grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
7. The percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out; and
8. The percentage of CWD exiting school by graduating with a regular high school d iploma.
The Results Elements for participation in regular Statewide assessments and participation and
performance on the NAEP are scored separately for reading and math. When combined with the exiting
data, there are a total of fourteen Results Elements. T he 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, each State
received a waiver of the assessment requirem ents in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, and, as a result, did
not have any FFY 2019 data for this element .
Percentage of CWD Scoring at Basic or Above on the NAEP
This is the percentage of CWD, not including students with a Section 504 plan, by grade (4 and 8) and
subject (math and reading), who scored at or above basic on the NAEP in SY 2018– 2019. (Data Source:
Main NAEP Data Explorer; data extracted 10/31/19)
Per centage of CWD Included in NAEP Testing
This is the reported percentage of identified CWD, by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading),
who were included in the NAEP testing in SY 2018– 2019. (Data Source: Nation’s Report Card, 2019):
Inclusion rate for 4
th and 8 th grade reading (see page 11):
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/supportive_files/2019_technical_appendix_reading.pdf
9 While the goal is to ensure that all CWD demonstrate proficient or advanced mastery of challenging subject matter, we recognize that States
may need to take intermediate steps to reach this benchmark. Therefore, we assessed the performance of CWD using the Basic ac hievement
level on the NAEP, which also provided OSEP with the broader range of data needed to identify variations in student performance across
States. Generally, the Basic achievement level on the NAEP means that students have demonstrated partial mastery of prerequis ite
knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient wo rk at each grade.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
9
Inclusion rate for 4
th
and 8 th grade math (see page 11):
https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2019_technical_appendix_math.pdf
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, reported in the exit reason category dropped out 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), then multiplying the result by
100. (Data source: EDFacts SY 2018 –201 9; data extracted 5/27/20)
Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Graduating with a Regular High School Diploma
This is a calculation of the percentage of CWD, age s 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 diploma 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), then multiplying the result by 100. (Data source: EDFacts SY 2018 –
2019 ; data extracte d 5/27 /20)
Scoring of the Results Matrix
In the attached State-specific 2021 Part B Results Matrix, a State received points as follows for the
Results Elements:
• A State’s participation rates on the regular Statewide assessments reflects “N/A” on the Results
Matrix. A State’s NAEP scores (Basic and above) were rank -ordered; the top tertile
10 of States
received a ‘2’, the middle t ertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom t ertile of States received a
‘ 0 ’.
• A State’s NAEP inclus ion rate was assigned a score of either ‘0’ or ‘1’ based on whether the State’s
NAEP inclusion rate for CWD was “higher than or not significantly different from the National
Assessment Governing Board [NAGB] goal of 85 percent.” “Standard error estimates” were reported
with the inclusion rates of CWD and taken into account in determining if a State’s inclusion rate was
higher than or not significantly different from the NAGB goal of 85 percent.
• A State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dr opping out were rank-ordered; the
top t ertile of States ( i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle t ertile
10 The tertiles of a data set divide it into three equal parts.
HOW THE DEPARTMENT MADE DETERMINATIONS
10
of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom t
ertile of States ( i.e., those with the highest percentage)
received a ‘0’.
• A State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by graduating with a regular high school
diploma were rank -ordered; the top t ertile of States ( i.e., those with the highest percentage)
received a score of ‘2’, the middle t ertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom t ertile 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 4th and 8th Grade CWD on
Regular Statewide Assessments (reading and math, separately) N/A N/A N/A
Percentage of 4th grade CWD scoring Basic or above on reading NAEP = 28
Percentage of 8th grade CWD scoring Basic or above on reading NAEP =3 2
Percentage of 4th grade CWD scoring Basic or above on math NAEP = 47
Percentage of 8th grade CWD scoring Basic or above on math NAEP =2 8
Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Graduating with a
Regular High School Diploma =7 8
Percentage of CWD Exiting School by Dropping Out >19 19 -14

View 2021 Part B State Performance Plans/Annual Performance Reports

Under Section 616(D) of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act in 2021: Part B

Revised 06/24/2021

idea_file-template-default single single-idea_file postid-82854 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