Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 20, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025 
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2023–2024 — Issued June 17, 2025
How the Department Made Determinations

June 20, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) issued its 2025 determinations for States on their implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C. The IDEA requires the Department to issue an annual determination, based on the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR), which evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR include indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

In the APR, each State reports annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute. The IDEA determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7.5 million infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and State lead agencies and early intervention service programs and providers for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

• Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

Since 2005 through 2022, States have submitted three SPPs as follows. States submitted SPPs initially in December 2005 under Part B and under Part C (one year after the 2004 IDEA amendments). The original SPP that each State submitted in 2005 covered a period of six years for Federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2005 through 2010 and was made up of quantifiable indicators (20 under Part B and 14 under Part C). These indicators measured either compliance with specific IDEA requirements (compliance indicators) or results and outcomes for children with disabilities and their families (results indicators). The original SPP was extended for two years for FFYs 2011 and 2012. In 2015, States submitted a second SPP that covered the six-year period for FFYs 2013 through 2018 and included a new results qualitative indicator under Part B and Part C, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). The second SPP was extended for one year for FFY 2019. On February 1, 2022, States submitted their third SPP, which includes compliance and results indicators (including the SSIP).

With the 2025 determinations, OSEP is providing States with its response to their FFY 2023 SPP/APRs. In 2025, the Department has continued using both compliance and results data to issue its determinations under both IDEA Parts B and C. For States that received a determination of “needs assistance” for two or more consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State receives a determination of “needs intervention” for three or more consecutive years, the Department must take certain enforcement actions.

IDEA Part B Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

IDEA Part C Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part B, Indicator 1: Percent of Youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) Exiting Special Education Due to Graduating with a Regular High School Diploma

About Part B Indicator 1

Part B Indicator 1 requires States to report the percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who exited special education (ages 14- 21) in the denominator.

States are instructed to include the following exiting categories in the denominator:

• a) graduated with a regular high school diploma
• b) graduated with a state-defined alternate diploma
• c) received a certificate
• d) reached maximum age
• e) dropped out

States are instructed not to include in the denominator the number of youths with IEPs who exited special education due to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who moved but are known to be continuing in an educational program.

Additionally, States must provide a narrative that describes the conditions youth must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma, and a description of whether the conditions that youth with IEPs must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma are different.

States may not use sampling to report this information. Data for this indicator are “lag” data and report on the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, use data from 2022-2023), and compare the results to the target.

Additional information about Part B Indicator 1 can be found in the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Measurement Table and the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Related Requirements.

Instructions for Using the Part B SPP/APR Indicator 1 Data File

The Part B SPP/APR Indicator 1 Data File can be filtered by State; historical or SPP/APR data; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Filtering by Historical or SPP/APR Data

To filter by historical or SPP/APR data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Historical Data

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021.

SPP/APR Data

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024).

Filtering by Question Text

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the numerator (the number of youth with IEPs ages 14-21 who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma), the denominator (number of all youth with IEPs who exited special education ages 14-21) and percentage of  (performance pct) of youth ages 14 – 21 who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma as described above in the about Part B Indicator 1 Section.

Key Terms 

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data

Use Case Examples

If a user wanted to find the percentage of youth who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma in particular state, they would first filter by state using the drop-down arrow in either column B (State name) or column C (State Postal Code) and select the State(s) they were interested in. Then, the user would select the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text), row 10, and select “Performance Pct” using the checkbox, then click “apply”, as enumerated in column I (Data).

Likewise, if a user wanted to know the number of youth who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma, they would click on the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text) and select “Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma” using the checkboxes, then click “apply”, as enumerated in column I (Data).

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.

Data Notes

Sampling is not allowed for Part B indicator 1. Data for this indicator are “lag” data. Included in the denominator are the following exiting categories: (a) graduated with a regular high school diploma; (b) graduated with a state-defined alternate diploma; (c) received a certificate; (d) reached maximum age; or (e) dropped out. The denominator does not include the number of youths with IEPs who exited special education due to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who moved but are known to be continuing in an educational program.

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part B, Indicator 14: Percent of Youth Who Are no Longer in Secondary School, Had IEPs in Effect at the Time They Left School, and Were Enrolled in Higher Education, Competitively Employed, Enrolled in Some Other Post Secondary Education or Training Program

About Part B Indicator 14

Part B Indicator 14 requires States to report the percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:

• A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.
• B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school.
• C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school.

States may select the data source used to report this information and sampling is allowed.

Additional information about Part B Indicator 14 can be found in the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Measurement Table and the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Related Requirements.

Instructions for Using the Part B SPP/APR Indicator 14 Data File

The Part B SPP/APR Indicator 14 Data File can be filtered by State; historical, SPP/APR, or Targets; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Filtering by Historical, SPP/APR, or Targets

To filter by historical, SPP/APR, or Targets data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Historical Data

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021.

SPP/APR Data

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024).

Targets Data

States are required to set targets that show improvement over the baseline data for the FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR. For additional information, visit: Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR.

Filtering by Question Text

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the outcomes (A – C) described above in the About Part B Indicator 14 Section.

Key Terms 

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data

Use Case Example

If a user wanted to the percentage of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were enrolled in higher education, they would click on the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text) and select “A. enrolled in higher education” as enumerated in column I (Data). Column K (Data Format) confirms that the data in column I represents a percentage.

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.

Data Notes

Sampling of parents from whom response is requested is allowed. When sampling is used, States must submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates.

For indicators that permit sampling, the State must include in its report on the performance of local educational agency/early intervention service (LEAs/EIS) programs the most recently available performance data on each LEA/EIS program and the date that the data were obtained. If a State is using sampling for one or more indicators, the State must sample on the performance of each LEA/EIS program on each of those indicators at least once during the period of FFY 2020–2025. Further, if a State is using sampling, the State must collect data from a representative sample of LEAs/EIS programs each year in order to report on State performance annually. For more information see the Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR. 

In this data file, some items note that calculations reflect (1 + 2 + 3 + 4) or other numerical combinations. The numbers in these selection options refer to the definitions below:

• Category 1 – Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school
• Category 2 – Competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education)
• Category 3 – Enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education or competitively employed)
• Category 4 – In some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed)
  • Leavers should only be counted in one of the above categories, and the categories are organized hierarchically.

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part C, Indicator 4: Percent of Families Participating in Part C Who Report That Early Intervention Services Have Helped the Family Know Their Rights, Effectively Communicate their Children’s Needs, and Help their Children Develop and Learn

About Part C Indicator 4

Part C Indicator 4 measures the percent of families participating in IDEA Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family:

• A. Know their rights;
• B. Effectively communicate their children’s needs; and
• C. Help their children develop and learn.

A State may use a survey to gather this information. States are required to analyze the survey response rate and identify any potential nonresponse bias and take steps to reduce any identified bias and promote response from a broad cross section of families that receive Part C services. Additionally, States must analyze whether the demographics of the families who responded to the survey are representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers receiving services in the Part C program. States should consider categories such as race/ethnicity, age of infant or toddler, and geographic location in the State.

If the analysis shows that the demographics of the infants or toddlers for whom families responded are not representative of the demographics of infants and toddlers receiving services in the Part C program, the State must describe the strategies it will use to ensure that in the future the response data are representative of those demographics.

Additional information about Part C Indicator 4 can be found in the2025 Part-C SPP/APR Measurement Table and the 2025 Part-C SPP/APR Related Requirements.

Instructions for Using the Part C SPP/APR Indicator 4 Data File

The Part C SPP/APR Indicator 4 Data File can be filtered by State; historical or SPP/APR data; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year (FFY); Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Filtering by Historical or SPP/APR Data

To filter by historical or SPP/APR data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Historical Data

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021.

SPP/APR Data

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024).

Filtering by Question Text

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the outcomes (A – C) described above in the About Part C Indicator 4 Section.

For each outcome (A – C), users may apply filters using the drop-down arrow in column G to view:

1. The number of respondent families participating in Part C who responded in the affirmative to the question;
2. The total number of responses to the question; and
3. The percentage of families who responded in the affirmative to the question (found for each outcome by dividing 1. by 2.)

Key Terms

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data

Use Case Examples

If a user wanted to view the number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights, they would select the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text) and select “A1. Number of respondent families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights” as enumerated in column I (data).

Likewise, if a user wanted to know what percentage of respondent families participating in Part C who reported that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights, they would click the drop-down arrow in column G and select “A. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family know their rights (A1 divided by A2)” as enumerated in column I (data).

This numbering system applies to the other outcomes described above (e.g., B., B1., B2).

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.

Data Notes

Sampling of families participating in Part C is allowed. When sampling is used, States must submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates.

For indicators that permit sampling, the State must include in its report on the performance of local educational agency/early intervention service (LEAs/EIS) programs the most recently available performance data on each LEA/EIS program and the date that the data were obtained. If a State is using sampling for one or more indicators, the State must sample on the performance of each LEA/EIS program on each of those indicators at least once during the period of FFY 2020–2025. Further, if a State is using sampling, the State must collect data from a representative sample of LEAs/EIS programs each year in order to report on State performance annually. For more information see the Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR.  

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part C, Indicator 3: Percent of Infants and Toddlers with IFSPs Who Demonstrate Improved Outcomes

About Part C Indicator 3

Part C Indicator 3 measures the percent of infants and toddlers with individualized family service plans (IFSPs) who demonstrate improved outcomes in the following areas:

• A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
• B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); and
• C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Within each of these areas, States are required to report on the percentage of infants and toddlers with disabilities that demonstrated:

• a) Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning.
• b) Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers.
• c) Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it.
• d) Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers.
• e) Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers.

Additionally, Indicator 3 requires States to report two summary statements for each of the three outcome areas, calculated based on the five progress categories defined above:

1. Summary Statement 1: Of those infants and toddlers who entered early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
   • Numerator: progress categories (c + d)
   • Numerator (just at-risk infants and toddlers/all infants and toddlers): progress categories (c + d) that includes only at-risk OR all infants and toddlers, depending on if the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”))
   • Denominator: progress categories (a + b + c + d)
   • Denominator (just at-risk infants and toddlers/all infants and toddlers): progress categories (a + b + c + d) that includes only at-risk OR all infants and toddlers, depending on if the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”))
2. Summary Statement 2: The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
   • Numerator: progress categories (d + e)
   • Numerator (just at-risk infants and toddlers/all infants and toddlers): progress categories (d + e) that includes only at-risk OR all infants and toddlers, depending on if the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”))
   • Denominator: progress categories (a + b + c + d + e)
   • Denominator (just at-risk infants and toddlers/all infants and toddlers): progress categories (a + b + c + d + e) that includes only at-risk OR all infants and toddlers, depending on if the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”))

In reporting these data, States are required to describe how annual data compare to State-identified targets, criteria for defining ‘comparable to same-aged peers’, and information regarding the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator, including whether the State is using the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Process (COS).

If the State’s Part C eligibility criteria include infants and toddlers who are at risk of having substantial developmental delays (or “at-risk infants and toddlers”) under IDEA Section 632(5)(B)(i), the State must report data in two ways. First, it must report on all eligible children but exclude its at-risk infants and toddlers (i.e., include just those infants and toddlers experiencing developmental delay (or “developmentally delayed children”) or having a diagnosed physical or mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental delay (or “children with diagnosed conditions”)). Second, the State must separately report outcome data on either: (1) just its at-risk infants and toddlers; or (2) aggregated performance data on all of the infants and toddlers it serves under Part C (including developmentally delayed children, children with diagnosed conditions, and at-risk infants and toddlers).

Additional information about indicator 3 can be found in the 2025 Part-C SPP/APR Measurement Table  and the 2025 Part-C SPP/APR Related Requirements.

Instructions for Using the Part C SPP/APR Indicator 3 Data File

The Part C SPP/APR Indicator 3 Data File can be filtered by State; historical, SPP/APR, or Targets; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Filtering by Historical, SPP/APR, or Targets

To filter by historical, SPP/APR, or Targets data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Historical Data

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021.

SPP/APR Data

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024).

Targets Data

States are required to set targets that show improvement over the baseline data for the FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR. For additional information, visit: Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR

Filtering by Question Text

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the outcomes (A – C), their associated progress categories (a – e), and summary statements (1 and 2) described above in the About Part C Indicator 3 Section.

Key Terms

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data

Use Case Examples

If a user wanted to find the percent of infants and toddlers who entered early intervention below age expectations, who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program (summary statement 1) for outcome B, acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication), they would select the drop-down arrow in column G, Question Text, row 10, uncheck “select all”, and scroll to find and select “B1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome B, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program”, as enumerated in column I.

If a user wanted to find the percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning (progress category a) in positive social-emotional skills (outcome A), they would select “Outcome A. Percentage of total a. Infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning” from the drop-down menu, and the percentage would be enumerated in column I (data).

If a user wanted to compare a State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR data with its current and future targets, they would select ‘SPP/APR data’ and ‘Targets’ in column F. Column G provides information on the State’s targets, baseline data, and actual data report for FFY 2022, as enumerated in column I.

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.

Data Notes

Sampling of infants and toddlers with IFSPs is allowed. When sampling is used, States must submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The measurement includes in the numerator and denominator only infants and toddlers with IFSPs who received early intervention services for at least six months before exiting the Part C program.

For indicators that permit sampling, the State must include in its report on the performance of local educational agency/early intervention service (LEAs/EIS) programs the most recently-available performance data on each LEA/EIS program and the date that the data were obtained. If a State is using sampling for one or more indicators, the State must sample on the performance of each LEA/EIS program on each of those indicators at least once during the period of FFY 2020–2025. Further, if a State is using sampling, the State must collect data from a representative sample of LEAs/EIS programs each year in order to report on State performance annually. For more information see the Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR.

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part B, Indicator 13: Percent of Youth with IEPs Aged 16 And Above with an IEP That Includes Appropriate Measurable Postsecondary Goals 

About Part B Indicator 13

Part B Indicator 13 requires States to report the percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. If a State’s policies and procedures provide that public agencies must meet these requirements at an age younger than 16, the State may, but is not required to, choose to include youth beginning at that younger age in its data for this indicator.

• Numerator: Number of youth aged 16 and above with IEPs that contain each of the required components for secondary transition.
• Denominator: Number of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above.

Additionally, Part B Indicator 13 requires evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services, including, if appropriate, pre-employment transition services, was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

To report these data, States must use data from State monitoring or the State’s data system. States are required to set their annual targets to 100%.

Additional information about Part B Indicator 13: 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Related Requirements and 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Measurement Table .

Instructions for Using the Part B SPP/APR Indicator 13 Data File

The Part B SPP/APR Indicator 13 Data File can be filtered by State; historical data, current SPP/APR data, State determined targets; question text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below. 

Filtering by State 

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes. 

Filtering by Historical, SPP/APR, or Targets 

To filter by historical, SPP/APR, or Targets data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes. 

Historical Data 

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021. 

SPP/APR Data 

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024). 

Targets Data 

States are required to set targets that show improvement over the baseline data for the FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR. For additional information, visit: Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR. 

Filtering by Question Text 

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text), row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the percent of percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs, as described above in the About Part B Indicator 13 Section. 

Key Terms:

• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data.
• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage. 

Use Case Example

To find the percent of youth with IEPS (aged 16 and above) with IEPs that met the criteria described above, a user would click on the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text) and select “Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services, including, if appropriate, pre-employment transition services, was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority” as enumerated in Column I (Data).

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed. 

Data Notes

If data are from State monitoring, States must describe the method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, States must include data for the entire reporting year.

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part B, Indicator 7: Percent of Preschool Children Aged 3 through 5 with IEPs Who Demonstrate Improved Outcomes

About Part B Indicator 7

Part B Indicator 7 requires States to report the percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved outcomes in the following areas:

• A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);
• B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication and early literacy); and
• C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Within each of these areas, States are required to report on the percentage of preschool children with disabilities that demonstrated:

• a) Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning.
• b) Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers.
• c) Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it.
• d) Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers.
• e) Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same- aged peers.

Additionally, Indicator 7 requires States to report two summary statements for each of the three outcome areas:

1. Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
   • Numerator: progress categories (c + d)
   • Denominator: progress categories (a + b + c + d)
2. Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
   • Numerator: progress categories (d + e)
   • Denominator: progress categories (a + b + c + d + e)

In reporting these data, States are required to describe how annual data compare to State-identified targets, criteria for defining ‘comparable to same-aged peers’, and information regarding the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator, including whether the State is using the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary Process (COS).

Additional information about Part B Indicator 7 can be found in the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Measurement Table (PDF)  and the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Related Requirements (PDF) .

Instructions for Using the Part B SPP/APR Indicator 7 Data File

The Part B SPP/APR Indicator 7 Data File can be filtered by State; historical, SPP/APR, or Targets; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Filtering by Historical, SPP/APR, or Targets

To filter by historical, SPP/APR, or Targets data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Historical Data

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021.

SPP/APR Data

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024).

Targets Data

States are required to set targets that show improvement over the baseline data for the FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR. For additional information, visit: Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR.

Filtering by Question Text

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the outcomes (A – C), their associated progress categories (a – e), and summary statements (1 and 2) described above in the About Part B Indicator 7 Section.

Key Terms 

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data

Use Case Examples

If a user wanted to find the percent of preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each outcome who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program (summary statement 1) for Outcome A: Positive Social Emotional Skills (including social relationships), they would select the drop-down arrow in column G, Question Text, row 10, uncheck “select all”, and scroll to find and select “A1. Of those children who entered or exited the program below age expectations in Outcome A, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program”, as enumerated in column I.

If a user wanted to find the percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning (progress category a) in use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs (outcome C), they would select the drop-down arrow in column G, Question Text, row 10, uncheck “select all”, and scroll to find and select “Outcome C, Percent of a. Preschool children who did not improve functioning”, and the percentage would be enumerated in column I, data.

If a user wanted to compare a State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR data with its current and future targets, they would select “SPP/APR data” and “Targets” in Column F. Column G provides information on the State’s targets, baseline data, and actual data report for FFY 2022, as enumerated in column I.

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.

Data Notes

Sampling of children for assessment is allowed. When sampling is used, States must submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. The measurement includes, in the numerator and denominator, only children who received special education and related services for at least six months during the age span of three through five years.

For indicators that permit sampling, the State must include in its report on the performance of local educational agency/early intervention service (LEAs/EIS) programs the most recently available performance data on each LEA/EIS program and the date that the data were obtained. If a State is using sampling for one or more indicators, the State must sample on the performance of each LEA/EIS program on each of those indicators at least once during the period of FFY 2020–2025. Further, if a State is using sampling, the State must collect data from a representative sample of LEAs/EIS programs each year in order to report on State performance annually. For more information see the Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR.  

Data Use Considerations for IDEA State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Part B, Indicator 2: Percent of Youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) Exiting Special Education Due to Dropping Out

About Part B Indicator 2

Part B Indicator 2 requires States to report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who exited special education (ages 14-21) in the denominator.

States are instructed to include the following exiting categories in the denominator:

• a) graduated with a regular high school diploma
• b) graduated with a state-defined alternate diploma
• c) received a certificate
• d) reached maximum age
• e) dropped out.

States are instructed not to include in the denominator the number of youths with IEPs who exited special education due to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who moved but are known to be continuing in an educational program.

Additionally, States must provide a narrative that describes what counts as dropping out for all youth, and a description of whether there is a difference between what counts as dropping out for all students and what counts as dropping out for students with IEPs.

States may not use sampling to report this information. Data for this indicator are “lag” data and report on the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, use data from 2022-2023), and compare the results to the target.

Additional information about Part B Indicator 2 can be found in the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Measurement Table and the 2025 Part-B SPP/APR Related Requirements.

Instructions for Using the Part B SPP/APR Indicator 2 Data File

The Part B SPP/APR Indicator 2 Data File can be filtered by State; historical or SPP/APR data; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each outcome and associated progress categories and summary statement listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Filtering by Historical or SPP/APR Data

To filter by historical or SPP/APR select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes.

Historical Data

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021.

SPP/APR Data

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024).

Filtering by Question Text

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the numerator (the number of youth with IEPs ages 14-21 who exited special education due to dropping out), the denominator (number of all youth with IEPs who exited special education ages 14-21) and percentage of  (performance pct) of youth ages 14 – 21 who exited special education due to dropping out as described above in the About Part B Indicator 2 Section. Additionally, users have the option to select and view data for each of the exiting categories (a – e) described above in the About Part B Indicator 2 section.

Key Terms 

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data

Use Case Examples

If a user wanted to find the percentage of youth who exited special education due to dropping out in State, they would first filter by State using the drop-down arrow in either column B (State name) or column C (State Postal Code) and select the State(s) they were interested in. Then, the user would select the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text), row 10, and select “Performance Pct” using the checkbox, then click “apply”, as enumerated in column I (Data).

Likewise, if a user wanted to know the number of youth who exited special education due to dropping out, they would click on the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text) and select “Number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out” using the checkboxes, then click “apply”, as enumerated in column I (Data).

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.

Data Notes

Sampling is not allowed for Part B indicator 2. Data for this indicator are “lag” data. Included in the denominator are the following exiting categories: (a) graduated with a regular high school diploma; (b) graduated with a state-defined alternate diploma; (c) received a certificate; (d) reached maximum age; or (e) dropped out. The denominator does not include the number of youths with IEPs who exited special education due to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who moved but are known to be continuing in an educational program.

About Part C Indicator 8

Part C Indicator 8 measures the percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has:

• A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday;
• B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the State) the State educational agency (SEA) and the local educational agency (LEA) where the toddler resides at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services; and
• C. Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday for toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services.

Should any delays occur, States are required to include a description of the reasons for the delay.

Additional information about Indicator 8 can be found in the 2025 Part-C SPP/APR Measurement Table and the 2025 Part-C SPP/APR Related Requirements.

Instructions for Using the Part C SPP/APR Indicator 8 Data File

The Part C SPP/APR Indicator 8 Data File can be filtered by State; historical, SPP/APR, or Targets; Question Text; Federal Fiscal Year; Data (or question responses); Suppression notes (if applicable); and Data format. The data file allows users to view and analyze the data submitted by each State on each sub-indicator listed above. Instructions for accessing and using these data can be found below.

Filtering by State 

To filter the data by State, select the drop-down arrow in either column B (to filter using State name) or column C (to filter using State postal code), row 10, and select the State(s) for which data is to be viewed using the checkboxes. 

Filtering by Historical, SPP/APR, or Targets 

To filter by historical, SPP/APR, or Targets data, select the drop-down arrow in column F (Sub Section/ Question Header/ Table header), row 10, and select the type of data to be viewed using the checkboxes. 

Historical Data 

Data reported by the State between FFY 2017 through FFY 2021. 

SPP/APR Data 

The data reported for the FFY 2022 federal fiscal year (released in calendar year 2024). 

Targets Data 

States are required to set targets that show improvement over the baseline data for the FFY 2020–2025 SPP/APR. For additional information, visit: Universal Technical Assistance for FFY 2020-2025 SPP/APR. 

Filtering by Question Text 

To filter by Question Text, select the drop-down arrow in column G, row 10. The drop-down menu generates several options for selection which correspond to the measured outcomes (A – C) described above in the About Part C Indicator 8 Section. 

Key Terms

• Slippage: A worsening from the previous data AND a failure to meet the target. The worsening also needs to meet certain thresholds to be considered slippage.
• Status: Denotes whether the State Met Target or Did Not Meet Target data.

Use Case Examples

If a user wanted to view the percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has: Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days prior to the toddler’s third birthday (Outcome A), they would click on the drop-down arrow in column G (Question Text), row 10 and select “The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has: A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday”, as enumerated in column I (Data).

If a user wanted to know the source of the data provided for the indicator, they would click on the drop-down arrow in column G (Questions Text), row 10, and select “What is the source of the data provided for this indicator?” The response from the State(s) selected would populate in the same line under column I (Data).

Filtering by Federal Fiscal Year (FFY)

To filter the data by the Federal Fiscal Year in which they were reported, select the drop-down arrow in column H (FFY Name), and select the year(s) for which data is to be viewed.  

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

nt Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

June 21, 2024

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) issued its 2024 determinations for States on their implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C. The IDEA requires the Department to issue an annual determination, based on the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR), which evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR include indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

In the APR, each State reports annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute. The IDEA determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7.5 million infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and State lead agencies and early intervention service programs and providers for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

• Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;
• Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;
• Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or
• Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

Since 2005 through 2022, States have submitted three SPPs as follows. States submitted SPPs initially in December 2005 under Part B and under Part C (one year after the 2004 IDEA amendments). The original SPP that each State submitted in 2005 covered a period of six years for Federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2005 through 2010 and was made up of quantifiable indicators (20 under Part B and 14 under Part C). These indicators measured either compliance with specific IDEA requirements (compliance indicators) or results and outcomes for children with disabilities and their families (results indicators). The original SPP was extended for two years for FFYs 2011 and 2012. In 2015, States submitted a second SPP that covered the six-year period for FFYs 2013 through 2018 and included a new results qualitative indicator under Part B and Part C, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). The second SPP was extended for one year for FFY 2019. On February 1, 2022, States submitted their third SPP, which includes compliance and results indicators (including the SSIP).

With the 2024 determinations, OSEP is providing States with its response to their FFY 2022 SPP/APRs. In 2024, the Department has continued using both compliance and results data to issue its determinations under both IDEA Parts B and C. For States that received a determination of “needs assistance” for two or more consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State receives a determination of “needs intervention” for three or more consecutive years, the Department must take certain enforcement actions.

IDEA Part B Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

IDEA Part C Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

under Section 616(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2024: Freely associated states, outlying areas, and the Bureau of Indian Education
Part B

Revised 06/21/2024

Introduction

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and compliance data in making our determination for each freely associated State, 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 an Entity, including information related to the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on Statewide assessments; exiting data on CWD who dropped out and CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma; the Entity’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2022 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Specific Conditions on the Entity’s grant award under IDEA Part B; 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 (OSEP) 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:

1. 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
2. 2024 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
3. 2024 RDA Percentage and 2024 Determination

A. 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix

In making each Entity’s 2024 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following data:

1. The Entity’s FFY 2022 data for applicable Part B Compliance Indicators^[1] 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 2021 under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA;
3. The Entity’s FFY 2022 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:

1. 1. Whether OSEP imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the Entity’s FFY 2023 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination, and the number of years for which the Entity’s Part B grant award has been subject to programmatic Specific Conditions; and
   2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 or earlier by 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 actual 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.

Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

In the attached Entity-specific 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for each of the Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13:^[2]

• Two points, if either:
  • The Entity’s FFY 2022 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
  • The Entity’s FFY 2022 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 2021 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 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 2021” column.^[5]
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2022 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 circumstances:
  • The Entity’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
  • The Entity’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;^[6] or
  • The Entity did not report FFY 2022 data for the indicator.^[7]

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate Entity-Reported Data

In the attached Entity-specific 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for Timely and Accurate Entity-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 Entity-specific 2024 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 FFY 2022 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2022 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the Entity’s FFY 2022 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 Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the attached Entity-specific 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for the Longstanding Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the Entity has:
• No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the Entity, in FFY 2020 or earlier; and
• No programmatic Specific Conditions on its FFY 2023 IDEA Part B grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
• The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the Entity, in FFY 2020, FFY 2019, and/or FFY 2018, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
• OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the Entity’s FFY 2023 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
• The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the Entity, in FFY 2017 or earlier, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
• OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

B. 2024 Part B Results Matrix

In making each Entity’s 2024 determination, the Department used a Results Matrix reflecting the following data:

1. The percentage of CWD participating in Statewide assessments^[9] across all available grade levels (3 through 8);
2. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD scoring at basic or above on the NAEP;^[10]
3. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
4. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD scoring at basic or above on the NAEP;
5. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
6. The percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out; and
7. The percentage of CWD exiting school by graduating with a regular high school diploma.

The Results Elements for participation in 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 four Results Elements for the Entities. The Results Elements are defined as follows:

Percentage of CWD Participating in Statewide Assessments

This is the percentage of CWD who took Statewide assessments in School Year (SY) 2022–2023 by calculating the assessment participation percentage across all available grade levels (3 through 8) where Statewide assessments were administered, for reading and math separately. The numerator for calculating the participation percentage of CWD who took Statewide assessments for each grade level with available data is the number of CWD participating in Statewide assessments in SY 2022–2023, and the denominator is the number of all CWD participants and non-participants in Statewide assessments in SY 2022–2023, excluding medical emergencies. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading).  (Data source: EDFacts SY 2022–2023; data extracted 2/7/24)

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 the most recently administered NAEP. As explained in footnote 10 given that data from the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE (i.e., 2019) was not comparable to the data from the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (i.e., 2022), OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2024 determination. Therefore, this results element was not a factor in 2024 determinations for the Entities.

Percentage 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 the most recently administered NAEP. As explained in footnote 10 given that data from the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE (i.e., 2019) was not comparable to the data from the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (i.e., 2022), OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2024 determination. Therefore, this results element was not a factor in 2024 determinations for the Entities.  

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 for SYs 2021–2022, 2020–2021, and 2019–2020, 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 2021-2022, 2020-2021, and 2019-2020, then multiplying the result by 100.^[11] (Data source: EDFacts SYs 2021-2022, 2020-2021, and 2019-2020; data extracted 5/24/23, 5/25/22, 5/26/21)

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.^[12] 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 for SYs 2021–2022, 2020–2021, and 2019–2020, 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 2021–2022, 2020–2021, and 2019–2020, then multiplying the result by 100. (Data source: EDFacts SYs 2021–2022, 2020–2021, and 2019–2020; data extracted 5/24/23, 5/25/22, 5/26/21)

Scoring of the Results Matrix

In the attached Entity-specific 2024 Part B Results Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for the Results Elements:

• An Entity’s participation rates on Statewide assessments were assigned scores of ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on an analysis of the participation rates across all States and Entities and the percentage of CWD who participate in Statewide assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).^[13] The participation rates for the Entities were calculated based on the participation rate across all available grade levels (3 through 8) in which the assessments were administered. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading). A score of ‘1’ was assigned if at least 95% of CWD in the Entity participated in the Statewide assessments; and a score of ‘0’ if the participation rate for CWD was less than 95%.
• Each State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank-ordered, and the top, middle, and bottom thirds were determined using tertiles. The exiting percentages for the Entities were calculated using the percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out in SYs 2021–2022, 2020–2021, and 2019–2020, and points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States (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 2021–2022, 2020–2021, and 2019–2020, and points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States (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’.

Starting with the 2024 determinations, OSEP is using as a factor the participation of CWD on Statewide assessments. In light of 2024 being the first year that participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments are being included in this manner, OSEP determined that, while participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments were a factor in each Entity’s 2024 Part B Results Matrix, no Entity received a Needs Intervention determination in 2024 due solely to this criterion.

The following table identifies how each of the Results Elements was scored:

Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the Entity received in its scoring under the Results Elements, the Results Matrix reflects a Results Score, which is combined with the Compliance Score to calculate the Entity’s RDA Percentage.

C. 2024 RDA Percentage and 2024 Determination

The Entity’s RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 40% of the Entity’s Results Score and 60% of the Entity’s Compliance Score. As explained on page nine above, while the participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments was a factor in each Entity’s 2024 Part B Results Matrix, no Entity received a Needs Intervention determination in 2024 due solely to its participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments – specifically, if an Entity’s RDA Percentage is less than 60% based solely on participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments , the Entity’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance instead of Needs Intervention. The Entity’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

Meets Requirements

An Entity’s 2024 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%,^[14] unless the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

Needs Assistance

An Entity’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80%. An Entity’s determination would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is 80% or above, but the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

Needs Intervention

An Entity’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Intervention if the RDA Percentage is less than 60%.  

Needs Substantial Intervention

The Department did not make a determination of Needs Substantial Intervention for any State or Entity in 2024.

Endnotes

[1] 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.

[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 Entity. The points for that indicator are not included in the denominator for the matrix.

[3] 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 Department 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 determining 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 compliance criteria for 95% and 75% for:

• the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
• the Entity’s FFY 2022 data, reported under section 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 “No” in that column denotes that the Entity has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 for which 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 2021 for the indicator.

[6] If an Entity’s FFY 2022 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 Entity’s data are not valid and reliable is contained in the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

[7] If an Entity reported no FFY 2022 data 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.

[8] 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 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. In the section of the rubric, entitled “Part B Timely and Accurate 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. The Entity’s section 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on section 618 data timeliness, completeness, and edit checks from EDFacts. 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 inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[9] Statewide assessments include the regular assessment and the alternate assessment.

[10] The BIE is the only Entity for which NAEP data are applicable as a results element. However, OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2024 determination because the NAEP data available for the BIE were not comparable to the NAEP data available for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; specifically, the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE is 2019, whereas the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is 2022.

[11] 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.

[12] When providing exiting data under section 618 of the IDEA, Entities are required to report, among other things, 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 stated 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 higher 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.”

[13] Under section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the ESEA, in measuring the performance of all students and each subgroup of students, States must annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools.

[14] In determining whether an Entity has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether an Entity has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

under Section 616(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2024:
Part B

Revised 06/21/2024

Introduction

In 2024, 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 the information we have about a State, including information related to the participation of children with disabilities (CWD) on Statewide assessments; the participation and performance of CWD on the most recently administered (2022) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); exiting data on CWD who dropped out and CWD who graduated with a regular high school diploma; the State’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2022 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Specific Conditions on the State’s grant award under IDEA Part B; 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 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 State’s Determination.

The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:

1. 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
2. 2024 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
3. 2024 RDA Percentage and 2024 Determination

A. 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix

In making each State’s 2024 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following data:

1. The State’s FFY 2022 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 2021 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 2022 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:

1. 1. Whether OSEP imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2023 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination, and the number of years for which the State’s Part B grant award has been subject to programmatic Specific Conditions; and
   2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 or earlier by 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.

Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

In the attached State-specific 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for each of the Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13:^[1]

• Two points, if either:
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95%^[2] compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect no greater than 5% compliance);^[3] or
  • The State’s FFY 2022 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 State identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY 2021 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 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 2021” column.^[4]
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2022 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:
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;^[5] or
  • The State did not report FFY 2022 data for the indicator.^[6]

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data

In the attached State-specific 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data:^[7]

• 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 2024 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 2022 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2022 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 2022 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 Longstanding Noncompliance
(Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the attached State-specific 2024 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Longstanding Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the State has:
  • No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the State, in FFY 2020 or earlier; and
  • No programmatic Specific Conditions on its FFY 2023 IDEA Part B grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the State, in FFY 2020, FFY 2019, and/or FFY 2018, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2023 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the State, in FFY 2017 or earlier, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

B. 2024 Part B Results Matrix

In making each State’s 2024 determination, the Department used a Results Matrix reflecting the following data:

1. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD participating in Statewide assessments;^[8]
2. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD participating in 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 diploma.

The Results Elements for participation in 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. The Results Elements are defined as follows:

Percentage of CWD Participating in Statewide Assessments

This is the percentage of CWD, by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading), who took Statewide assessments in school year (SY) 2022–2023. The numerator for this calculation is the number of CWD participating on Statewide assessments in SY 2022–2023, and the denominator is the number of all CWD participants and non-participants on Statewide assessments in SY 2022–2023, excluding medical emergencies. The calculation is done separately by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading).
(Data source: EDFacts SY 2022–2023; data extracted 2/7/24)

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 the most recently administered NAEP (2022).
(Data Source: Main NAEP Data Explorer; data extracted 10/24/22)

Percentage 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 the most recently administered NAEP (2022).
(Data Source: Nation’s Report Card, 2022):

Inclusion rate for 4th and 8th grade reading (see page 10):

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/supportive_files/2022_technical_appendix_reading.pdf

Inclusion rate for 4th and 8th grade math (see page 10):

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2022_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 2021–2022; data extracted 5/24/23)

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.^[10] 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 2021–2022; data extracted 5/24/23)

Scoring of the Results Matrix

In the attached State-specific 2024 Part B Results Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Results Elements:

• A State’s participation rates on Statewide assessments were assigned scores of ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on an analysis of the participation rates across all States and the percentage of CWD who participate in Statewide assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).^[11] A score of ‘1’ was assigned if at least 95% of CWD in a State participated in the Statewide assessments; Sta score of ‘0’ if the participation rate for CWD was less than 95%.
• NAEP scores (Basic and above) for each State^[12] were rank-ordered, and the top, middle, and bottom thirds were determined using tertiles.^[13] The scores that fell in the top tertile of States (e., those with the highest scores) received a ‘2’, the scores that fell in the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the scores that fell in the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest scores) received a ‘0’.
• A State’s NAEP inclusion 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.^[14] “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.
• State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank-ordered; the top tertile of States (e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom tertile 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 tertile of States (e., those with the highest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a ‘0’.

Starting with the 2024 determinations, OSEP is using as a factor the participation of CWD on Statewide assessments. In light of 2024 being the first year that participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments are being included in this manner, OSEP determined that, while participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments were a factor in each State’s 2024 Part B Results Matrix, no State received a Needs Intervention determination in 2024 due solely to this criterion.

The following table identifies how each of the Results Elements was scored:

Percentage of 4th and 8th Grade CWD included in NAEP testing
(reading or math):

1 point if State’s inclusion rate was higher than or not significantly different from the NAGB goal of 85%.

0 points if less than 85%.

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 the Results Elements, the Results Matrix reflects a Results Score, which is combined with the Compliance Score to calculate the State’s RDA Percentage.

C. 2024 RDA Percentage and 2024 Determination

The State’s RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 50% of the State’s Results Score and 50% of the State’s Compliance Score. As explained on pages nine and ten above, while the participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments were a factor in each State’s 2024 Part B Results Matrix, no State received a Needs Intervention determination in 2024 due solely to its participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments — specifically, if a State’s RDA Percentage is less than 60% based solely on participation rates of CWD on Statewide assessments, the State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance instead of Needs Intervention. The State’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

Meets Requirements

A State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%,^[15] unless the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

Needs Assistance

A State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% 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 Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

Needs Intervention

A State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Intervention if the RDA Percentage is less than 60%.

Needs Substantial Intervention

The Department did not make a determination of Needs Substantial Intervention for any State in 2024.

Endnotes

[1] 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 in the denominator for the matrix.

[2] 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% compliance 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 indicators, 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 2022 data, reported under section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions.

[3] For Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, a very high level of compliance is generally at or below 5%.

[4] A “No” in that column denotes that the State has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2021 for the indicator.

[5] If a State’s FFY 2022 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 contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

[6] If a State reported no FFY 2022 data for any compliance indicator (unless the indicator is not applicable to the State), the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.

[7] 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 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. In the section of the rubric, entitled “Part B Timely and Accurate Data,” States 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. 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. 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 inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[8] Statewide assessments include the regular assessment and the alternate assessment.

[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 achievement 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 prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

[10] When providing exiting data under section 618 of the IDEA, States are required to report, among other things, on the number of students with disabilities who exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As stated 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 higher 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.”

[11] Under section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the ESEA, in measuring the performance of all students and each subgroup of students, States must annually measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public schools.

[12] For 2024 determinations, OSEP used NAEP data for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.  OSEP used the available NAEP data for Puerto Rico in making Puerto Rico’s determination (as it did for Puerto Rico’s 2023 determination). The available NAEP data for Puerto Rico is for math, not reading, because Puerto Rico administers the math, but not reading, NAEP. In addition, OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2024 determination because the NAEP data available for the BIE were not comparable to the NAEP data available for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; specifically, the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE is 2019, whereas the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is 2022.

[13] The tertiles of a data set divide it into three equal parts.

[14] National Assessment Governing Board-NAGB. (2010, 2014). NAEP Testing and Reporting on Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners — Policy Statement. Retrieved from https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/policies/naep_testandreport_studentswithdisabilities.pdf.

[15] In determining whether a State has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

under
Sections 616(d) and 642 of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2024:
Part C

Revised 06/18/2024

Introduction

In 2024, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and compliance data in making our determination for each State under Sections 616(d) and 642 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for each State’s early intervention program under Part C of the IDEA. We considered the totality of the information we have about a State, including information related to the State’s Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2022 State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR), Indicator C3 Child Outcomes data (Outcomes data) and other data reported in each State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR; information from monitoring and other publicly available information, such as Specific Conditions on the State’s IDEA Part C grant award, and other issues related to a State’s compliance with the IDEA.

In examining each State’s Outcomes data, we specifically considered the following results elements:

1. Data quality by examining—
   1. the completeness of the State’s data, and
   2. how the State’s FFY 2022 data compared to four years of historic data to identify data anomalies; and
2. Child performance by examining—
   1. how each State’s FFY 2022 data compared with all other States’ FFY 2022 data, and
   2. how each State’s FFY 2022 data compared with its own FFY 2021 data.

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 is individualized for each State and consists of:

1. a Compliance Matrix that includes scoring on SPP/APR Compliance Indicators and other compliance factors;
2. Results Components and Appendices that include 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 2024 Determination.

The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:

1. 2024 Part C RDA Matrix and Results Score
2. 2024 Part C Compliance Matrix and Compliance Score; and
3. 2024 RDA Percentage and 2024 Determination

A. 2024 Part C RDA Matrix and Results Score

In making each State’s 2024 determination, the Department used the FFY 2022 early childhood outcomes data reported by each State under SPP/APR Indicator C3 by considering the following results elements:

1. Data Quality

1. Data Completeness:
   Data completeness was calculated using the total number of Part C children who were included in each State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data and the total number of children the State reported exiting during FFY 2022 in its FFY 2022 IDEA Section 618 Exiting data; and
2. Data Anomalies:
   Data anomalies were calculated by examining how the State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data compared to four years of historic data.

2. Child Performance

1. Data Comparison:
   How each State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data compared with all other States’ FFY 2022 Outcomes data; and
2. Performance Change Over Time:
   How each State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data compared with its own FFY 2021 Outcomes data.

Calculation of each of these results elements and scoring is further described below:

1. Data Quality

1. Data Completeness:
   The data completeness score was calculated using the total number of Part C children who were included in your State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data and the total number of children your State reported exiting during FFY 2022 in its FFY 2022 IDEA Section 618 Exiting data. Each State received a percentage, which was computed by dividing the number of children reported in the State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data by the number of children the State reported exited during FFY 2022 in the State’s FFY 2022 IDEA Section 618 Exiting Data. This yielded a percentage such that each State received a data completeness score of ‘2’ if the percentage was at least 65%^[1]; a data completeness score of ‘1’ if the percentage was between 34% and 64%; and a data completeness score of ‘0’ if the percentage were less than 34%. For the State with an approved sampling plan, the State received a ‘2’.
   (Data Sources: FFY 2022 APR Indicator C3 data and EDFacts School Year (SY) 2022–2023; data extracted 2/22/2024.)
2. Data Anomalies:
   The data anomalies score for each State represents a summary of the data anomalies in each State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data. Publicly available data for the preceding four years reported by and across all States for each of 15 progress categories under Indicator 3 (in the FFY 2018–FFY 2021 APRs) were used to determine an expected range of responses for each progress category under Outcomes A, B, and C.^[2] For each of the 15 progress categories, a mean was calculated using this publicly available data. A lower and upper scoring percentage was set at one standard deviation above and below the mean for category a and two standard deviations above or below the mean for categories b through e. In any case where the low scoring percentage set from one or two standard deviations below the mean resulted in a negative number, the low scoring percentage is equal to 0.

If your State's FFY 2022 Outcomes data reported in a progress category fell below the calculated "low percentage" or above the "high percentage" for that progress category for all States, the data in that particular category are statistically improbable outliers and considered an anomaly for that progress category. If your State’s data in a particular progress category was identified as an anomaly, the State received a ‘0’ for that category. A percentage that is equal to or between the low percentage and high percentage for each progress category received 1 point. A State could receive a total number of points between 0 and 15. Thus, a point total of 0 indicates that all 15 progress categories contained data anomalies and a point total of 15 indicates that there were no data anomalies in all 15 progress categories in the State's data. An overall data anomalies score of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ is based on the total points awarded. Each State received a data anomalies score of ‘2’ if the total points received in all progress categories were 13 through 15; a data anomalies score of ‘1’ for 10 through 12 points; and a data anomalies score of ‘0’ for zero through nine points.
(Data Sources: States’ FFY 2018 through FFY 2021 SPP/APR Indicator C3 Child Outcomes data and each State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR Indicator C3 Child Outcomes data)

2. Child Performance

1. Data Comparison:
   The data comparison overall performance score represents how your State's FFY 2022 Outcomes data compares to other States' FFY 2022 Outcomes data. Each State received a score for the distribution of the 6 Summary Statements (SS) for that State compared to the distribution of the 6 Summary Statements in all other States.^[3] The 10th and 90th percentile for each of the 6 Summary Statements was identified and used to assign points to performance outcome data for each Summary Statement. Each Summary Statement outcome was assigned ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ points.

If a State’s Summary Statement value fell at or below the 10th percentile, that Summary Statement was assigned a score of ‘0’. If a State’s Summary Statement value fell between the 10th and 90th percentile, the Summary Statement was assigned ‘1’ point, and if a State’s Summary Statement value fell at or above the 90th percentile, the Summary Statement was assigned ‘2’ points. The points were added across the 6 Summary Statements. A State can receive total points between 0 and 12, with the total points of ‘0’ indicating all 6 Summary Statement values were below the 10th percentile and a total points of 12 indicating all 6 Summary Statements were above the 90th percentile. An overall comparison Summary Statement score of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ was based on the total points awarded.

The data comparison Overall Performance Score for this results element of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ for each State is based on the total points awarded. Each State received an Overall Performance Score of: ‘2’ if the total points across SS1 and SS2 were nine through 12 points; score of ‘1’ for five through eight points; and score of ‘0’ for zero through four points.
(Data Sources: All States’ SPP/APR Indicator C3 data from FFY 2022 and each State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR Indicator C3 data.)

1. Performance Change Over Time:
   The Overall Performance Change Score represents how each State’s FFY 2022 Outcomes data compared with its FFY 2021 Outcomes data and whether the State’s data demonstrated progress. The data in each Outcome Area is assigned a value of 0 if there was a statistically significant decrease from one year to the next, a value of 1 if there was no significant change, and a value of 2 if there was a statistically significant increase. The specific steps for each State are described in the State’s RDA Matrix. The scores from all 6 Outcome Areas were totaled, resulting in total points ranging from 0 – 12. The Overall Performance Change Score for this results element of ‘0’, ‘1’, or ‘2’ for each State is based on the total points awarded. Each State received an Overall Performance Change Score of: ‘2’ if the total points were eight or above; a score of ‘1’ for four through seven points; and score of ‘0’ for three points or below. Where OSEP has approved a State’s reestablishment of its Indicator C3 Outcome Area baseline data as its data for FFY 2022, because the State has changed its methodology for collecting this outcome data, the State received a score of ‘N/A’ for this element since determining performance change based on the percentages across these two years of data would not be a valid comparison. The points are not included in either the numerator or denominator in the overall calculation of the results score.
   (Data Source: SPP/APR Indicator C3 data from FFY 2021 and 2022)

B. 2024 Part C Compliance Matrix and Compliance Score

In making each State’s 2024 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following compliance data:

1. The State’s FFY 2022 data for Part C Compliance Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C (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 2021 under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under Sections 616, 618, and 642 of Part C of the IDEA;
3. The State’s FFY 2022 data, reported under Section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State IDEA Part C complaint and due process hearing decisions;
4. Longstanding Noncompliance:

The Department considered:

1. 1. Whether OSEP imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2023 IDEA Part C grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination, and the number of years for which the State’s IDEA Part C grant award has been subject to programmatic Specific Conditions; and
   2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 or earlier by the State that the State has not yet corrected.

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.

1. Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C

In the 2024 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for each of Compliance Indicators 1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C:^[4]

• Two points, if either:
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95%^[5] compliance; or
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 90% compliance; and the State identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY 2021 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 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 2021” column.^[6]
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 75% compliance, and the State did not meet either of the criteria above for two points.
• Zero points, under any of the following circumstances:
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance; or
  • The State’s FFY 2022 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;^[7] or
  • The State did not report FFY 2022 data for the indicator.^[8]

2. Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data

In the 2024 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for Timely and Accurate State-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.

3. Scoring of the Matrix for Timely State Complaint Decisions and Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions

In the 2024 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for timely State complaint decisions and for timely due process hearings, as reported by the State under Section 618 of the IDEA:

• Two points, if the State’s FFY 2022 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2022 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 2022 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.

4. Scoring of the Matrix for Long-Standing Noncompliance
(Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the 2024 Part C Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Longstanding Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the State has:
  • No remaining findings of noncompliance identified by the State; in FFY 2020 or earlier, and

• • No programmatic Specific Conditions on its FFY 2023 IDEA Part C grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:

• • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance, identified by the State, in FFY 2020, FFY 2019, and/or FFY 2018, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the FFY 2022 OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2023 IDEA Part C grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:

• • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified the State, in FFY 2017 or earlier, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • The Department has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023) IDEA Part C grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

C. 2024 RDA Percentage and 2024 Determination

Each State’s 2024 RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 50% of the State’s Results Score and 50% of the State’s Compliance Score. The State’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

1. Meets Requirements

A State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%,^[10] unless the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part C grant awards (for FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023), and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

2. Needs Assistance

A State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80%. A State would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is 80% or above, but the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s last three IDEA Part C grant awards (for FFYs 2021, 2022, and 2023), and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2024 determination.

3. Needs Intervention

A State’s 2024 RDA Determination is Needs Intervention if the RDA Percentage is less than 60%..

4. Needs Substantial Intervention

The Department did not make a determination of Needs Substantial Intervention for any State in 2024.

Endnotes

[1] In determining the data completeness score, the Department will round up from 64.5% (but no lower) to 65%. Similarly, the Department will round up from 33.5% (but no lower) to 34%.

[2] The three Child Outcome areas are: Outcome A (Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships); Outcome B (Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication)); and Outcome C (Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their need). The five Progress Categories under SPP/APR Indicator C3 are the following:

1. Percent of infants and toddlers who did not improve functioning
2. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers
3. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it
4. Percent of infants and toddlers who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers
5. Percent of infants and toddlers who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers

Outcomes A, B, and C under SPP/APR Indicator C- each contain these five progress categories for a total of 15 progress categories.

[3] Each of the three Child Outcome Areas (A, B, and C) are measured by the following two Summary Statements:

1. Of those infants and toddlers who entered or exited early intervention below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.
2. The percent of infants and toddlers who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 3 years of age or exited the program.

[4] 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 in the denominator for the matrix.

[5] In determining whether a State has met the 95% compliance criterion for these indicators (1, 7, 8A, 8B, and 8C), the Department will round up from 94.5% (but no lower) to 95%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 90% compliance criterion discussed below, 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 discussed below, the Department will round up from 74.5% (but no lower) to 75%. 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, 618, and 642 of the IDEA;
2. the State’s FFY 2022 data, reported under Section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due process hearing decisions.

[6] A “No” in that column denotes that the State has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2021 for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2021 for the indicator.

[7] If a State’s FFY 2022 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 contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

[8] If a State reported no FFY 2022 data for any compliance indicator, the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.

[9] OSEP used the Part C Timely and Accurate Data Rubric to award points to States based on the timeliness and accuracy of their 616 and 618 data. A copy of the rubric is contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2022 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. On page one of the rubric, entitled “Part C Timely and Accurate Data” States 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 submission are added together to form the APR Grand Total. The State’s 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on 618 data timeliness, completeness and edit checks from EDFacts. The percentage of Timely and Accurately 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 inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[10] In determining whether a State has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 21, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

Grant Year 2022–2023 — Issued June 18, 2024
How the Department Made Determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations (Entities)

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 23, 2023)
How the department made determinations

June 26, 2023

The U.S. Department of Education (Department) issued its 2023 determinations for states on their implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C. The IDEA requires the Department to issue an annual determination, based on the State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR), which evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR include indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

In the APR, each State reports annually to the Secretary on its performance under the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute. The IDEA determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7.5 million infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.

OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA), brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and State lead agencies and early intervention service programs and providers for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

•  Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;
•  Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;
•  Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or
•  Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

Since 2005 through 2022, States have submitted three SPPs as follows. States submitted SPPs initially in December 2005 under Part B and under Part C (one year after the 2004 IDEA amendments). The original SPP that each State submitted in 2005 covered a period of six years for Federal fiscal years (FFYs) 2005 through 2010 and was made up of quantifiable indicators (20 under Part B and 14 under Part C). These indicators measured either compliance with specific IDEA requirements (compliance indicators) or results and outcomes for children with disabilities and their families (results indicators). The original SPP was extended for two years for FFYs 2011 and 2012. In 2015, States submitted a second SPP that covered the six-year period for FFYs 2013 through 2018 and included a new results qualitative indicator under Part B and Part C, the State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). The second SPP was extended for one year for FFY 2019. On February 1, 2022, States submitted their third SPP, which includes compliance and results indicators (including the SSIP).

With the 2023 determinations, OSEP is providing States with its response to their FFY 2021 SPP/APRs. In 2023, the Department has continued using both compliance and results data to issue its determinations under both IDEA Parts B and C. For States that received a determination of “needs assistance” for two or more consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State receives a determination of “needs intervention” for three or more consecutive years, the Department must take certain enforcement actions.

IDEA Part B Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B, which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

IDEA Part C Determinations

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C, which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

Under Section 616(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2023:
Part B

Revised 06/23/2023

Introduction

In 2023, 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 the 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 (2022) 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) 2021 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Specific Conditions on the State’s grant award under IDEA Part B; 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 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 State’s Determination.

The scoring of each of the above evaluation criteria is further explained below in the following sections:

1. 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
2. 2023 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
3. 2023 RDA Percentage and 2023 Determination

A. 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix

In making each State’s 2023 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following data:

1. The State’s FFY 2021 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 2020 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 2021 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:

1. 1. Whether OSEP imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination, and the number of years for which the State’s Part B grant award has been subject to programmatic Specific Conditions; and
   2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 or earlier by 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.

Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

In the attached State-specific 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for each of the Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13:^[2]

• Two points, if either:
  • The State’s FFY 2021 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
  • The State’s FFY 2021 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 State identified one or more findings of noncompliance in FFY 2020 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 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 2020” column.^[5]
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2021 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:
  • The State’s FFY 2021 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
  • The State’s FFY 2021 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;^[6] or
  • The State did not report FFY 2021 data for the indicator.^[7]

With the FFY 2021 SPP/APR submissions, OSEP conducted a comprehensive analysis of each State’s methodology for Indicators 4A and 4B to ensure it is reasonably designed to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities among LEAs in the State or compared to the rates for nondisabled children within those LEAs. In OSEP’s response to the FFY 2021 SPP/APR submissions, OSEP provided States with detailed feedback about their methodology for Indicators 4A and 4B.^[8] In light of this detailed analysis and feedback on States’ FFY 2021 SPP/APR submissions, OSEP determined that, while Indicator 4B data continued to be a factor in each State’s 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, no State’s 2023 determination was negatively impacted due solely to its Indicator 4B data.

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data

In the attached State-specific 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for Timely and Accurate State-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 State-specific 2023 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 2021 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the State’s FFY 2021 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the State’s FFY 2021 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 Longstanding Noncompliance
(Includes Both Uncorrected Identified Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the attached State-specific 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Longstanding Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the State has:
  • No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the State, in FFY 2019 or earlier; and
  • No programmatic Specific Conditions on its FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the State, in FFY 2019, FFY 2018, and/or FFY 2017, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
  • The State has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the State, in FFY 2016 or earlier, for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
  • OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.

B. 2023 Part B Results Matrix

In making each State’s 2023 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 eighth-grade CWD participating in regular Statewide assessments;
3. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD scoring at basic^[10] 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 diploma.

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. The Results Elements are defined as follows:

Percentage of CWD Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

This is the percentage of CWD, by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading), who took regular Statewide assessments in school year (SY) 2021–2022 with and without accommodations. The numerator for this calculation is the number of CWD participating with and without accommodations on regular Statewide assessments in SY 2021–2022, and the denominator is the number of all CWD participants and non-participants on regular and alternate Statewide assessments in SY 2021–2022, excluding medical emergencies. The calculation is done separately by grade (4 and 8) and subject (math and reading).
(Data source: EDFacts SY 2021–2022; data extracted 4/5/23)

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 2022.
(Data Source: Main NAEP Data Explorer; data extracted 10/24/22)

Percentage 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 2022.
(Data Source: Nation’s Report Card, 2022):

Inclusion rate for 4th and 8th grade reading (see page 11):

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/supportive_files/2022_technical_appendix_reading.pdf

Inclusion rate for 4th and 8th grade math (see page 11):

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/mathematics/supportive_files/2022_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 2020–2021; data extracted 5/25/22)

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 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 2020–2021; data extracted 5/25/22)

Scoring of the Results Matrix

In the attached State-specific 2023 Part B Results Matrix, a State received points as follows for the Results Elements:

• A State’s participation rates on regular Statewide assessments were assigned scores of ‘2’, ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on an analysis of the participation rates across all States. A score of ‘2’ was assigned if at least 90% of CWD in a State participated in the regular Statewide assessment; a score of ‘1’ if the participation rate for CWD was 80% to 89%; and a score of ‘0’ if the participation rate for CWD was less than 80%.
• NAEP scores (Basic and above) for each State^[11] were rank-ordered, and the top, middle, and bottom thirds were determined using tertiles.^[12] The scores that fell in the top tertile of States (e., those with the highest scores) received a ‘2’, the scores that fell in the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the scores that fell in the bottom tertile of States (i.e., those with the lowest scores) received a ‘0’.
• A State’s NAEP inclusion 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.^[13] “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.
• State’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank-ordered; the top tertile of States (e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and the bottom tertile 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 tertile of States (e., those with the highest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, the middle tertile of States received a ‘1’, and 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:

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 the Results Elements, the Results Matrix reflects a Results Score, which is combined with the Compliance Score to calculate the State’s RDA Percentage.

C. 2023 RDA Percentage and 2023 Determination

The State’s RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 50% of the State’s Results Score and 50% of the State’s Compliance Score. As explained on page five above, while Indicator 4B data was a factor in each State’s 2023 Compliance Matrix, no State’s 2023 determination was negatively impacted due solely to its Indicator 4B data — specifically, if a State’s RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80% based solely on Indicator 4B data, the State’s 2023 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements instead of Needs Assistance; likewise, if a State’s RDA Percentage is less than 60% based solely on Indicator 4B data, the State’s 2023 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance instead of Needs Intervention. The State’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

Meets Requirements
A State’s 2023 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%,^[14] unless the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.

Needs Assistance
A State’s 2023 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% 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 Specific Conditions on the State’s last three (FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.

Needs Intervention
A State’s 2023 RDA Determination is Needs Intervention if the RDA Percentage is less than 60%.

Needs Substantial Intervention
The Department did not make a determination of Needs Substantial Intervention for any State in 2023.

Endnotes

[1] When providing exiting data under Section 618 of the IDEA, States are required to report, among other things, on the number of students with disabilities who exited an educational program through receipt of a regular high school diploma. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As stated 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 higher 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.”

[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 in 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% compliance 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 indicators, 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:

• the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the State under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
• the State’s FFY 2021 data, reported under Section 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 “No” in that column denotes that the State has one or more remaining findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 for which the State has not yet demonstrated correction. An “N/A” (for “not applicable”) in that column denotes that the State did not identify any findings of noncompliance in FFY 2020 for the indicator.

[6] If a State’s FFY 2021 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 contained in the OSEP Response to the State’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

[7] If a State reported no FFY 2021 data for any compliance indicator (unless the indicator is not applicable to the State), the matrix so indicates in the “Performance” column, with a corresponding score of 0.

[8] In OSEP’s July 19, 2022, guidance titled Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA’s Discipline Provisions, at Question L-6, OSEP reiterated that factors it may consider in determining reasonableness of a State’s methodology include whether none, or a very low percentage of, the State’s LEAs are being examined for significant discrepancy under the State’s chosen methodology, and whether statistically sound alternative methodologies exist or are being used by similarly-situated States.

[9] 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 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. On page one of the rubric, entitled “Part B Timely and Accurate Data,” States 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. 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. 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 inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[10] 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 achievement 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 prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade.

[11] For 2023 determinations, OSEP used NAEP data for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Starting in 2023, OSEP is using the available NAEP data for Puerto Rico in making Puerto Rico’s determination (as indicated in the 2022 determination letters to States and Entities). The available NAEP data for Puerto Rico is for math, not reading, because Puerto Rico administers the math, but not reading, NAEP. In addition, OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2023 determination because the NAEP data available for the BIE were not comparable to the NAEP data available for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; specifically, the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE is 2019, whereas the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is 2022.

[12] The tertiles of a data set divide it into three equal parts. 

[13] National Assessment Governing Board-NAGB. (2010, 2014). NAEP Testing and Reporting on Students with Disabilities and English Language Learners — Policy Statement. Retrieved from https://www.nagb.gov/content/dam/nagb/en/documents/policies/naep_testandreport_studentswithdisabilities.pdf.

[14] In determining whether a State has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether a State has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

Under Section 616(d) of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2023:
Freely Associated States, Outlying Areas, and the
Bureau of Indian Education
Part B

Revised 06/23/2023

Introduction

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) is continuing to use both results and compliance data in making our determination for each freely associated State, 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 an 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) 2021 State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR); information from monitoring and other public information, such as Specific Conditions on the Entity’s grant award under IDEA Part B; 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 (OSEP) 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:

1. 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix and Scoring of the Compliance Matrix
2. 2023 Part B Results Matrix and Scoring of the Results Matrix
3. 2023 RDA Percentage and 2023 Determination

A. 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix

In making each Entity’s 2023 determination, the Department used a Compliance Matrix, reflecting the following data:

1. The Entity’s FFY 2021 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 2020 under such indicators;
2. The timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA;
3. The Entity’s FFY 2021 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:

1. 1. Whether OSEP imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the Entity’s FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination, and the number of years for which the Entity’s Part B grant award has been subject to programmatic Specific Conditions; and
   2. Whether there are any findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2019 or earlier by 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 actual 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.

Scoring of the Matrix for Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13

In the attached Entity-specific 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for each of the Compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13:[3]

• Two points, if either:
  • The Entity’s FFY 2021 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
  • The Entity’s FFY 2021 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 2020 for the indicator, and has demonstrated correction of all findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2020 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 2020” column.[6]
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2021 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 circumstances:
  • The Entity’s FFY 2021 data for the indicator reflect less than 75% compliance (or, for Indicators 4B, 9, and 10, reflect greater than 25% compliance); or
  • The Entity’s FFY 2021 data for the indicator were not valid and reliable;[7] or
  • The Entity did not report FFY 2021 data for the indicator.[8]

With the FFY 2021 SPP/APR submissions, OSEP conducted a comprehensive analysis of each Entity’s methodology for Indicators 4A and 4B to ensure it is reasonably designed to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities among LEAs in the Entity or compared to the rates for nondisabled children within those LEAs. In OSEP’s response to the FFY 2021 SPP/APR submissions, OSEP provided Entities with detailed feedback about their methodology for Indicators 4A and 4B.[9] In light of this detailed analysis and feedback on Entities’ FFY 2021 SPP/APR submissions, OSEP determined that, while Indicator 4B data continued to be a factor in each Entity’s 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, no Entity’s 2023 determination was negatively impacted due solely to its Indicator 4B data.

Scoring of the Matrix for Timely and Accurate Entity-Reported Data

In the attached Entity-specific 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for Timely and Accurate Entity-Reported Data[10]:

• 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 2023 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 FFY 2021 data were valid and reliable, and reflect at least 95% compliance.
• One point, if the Entity’s FFY 2021 data reflect at least 75% and less than 95% compliance.
• Zero points, if the Entity’s FFY 2021 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 Noncompliance and Specific Conditions)

In the attached Entity-specific 2023 Part B Compliance Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for the Longstanding Noncompliance component:

• Two points, if the Entity has:
• No remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the Entity, in FFY 2019 or earlier; and
• No programmatic Specific Conditions on its FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award that are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.
• One point, if either or both of the following occurred:
• The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the Entity, in FFY 2019, FFY 2018, and/or FFY 2017, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
• OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the Entity’s FFY 2022 IDEA Part B grant award and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.
• Zero points, if either or both of the following occurred:
• The Entity has remaining findings of noncompliance identified, by the Entity, in FFY 2016 or earlier, for which the Entity has not yet demonstrated correction (see the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool for specific information regarding these remaining findings of noncompliance); and/or
• OSEP has imposed programmatic Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.

B. 2023 Part B Results Matrix

In making each Entity’s 2023 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 fourth-grade CWD scoring at basic or above on the NAEP;[11]
3. The percentage of fourth-grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
4. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD scoring at basic or above on the NAEP;
5. The percentage of eighth-grade CWD included in NAEP testing;
6. The percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out; and
7. 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

This is the percentage of CWD who took regular Statewide assessments in School Year (SY) 2021–2022 with and without accommodations by averaging the assessment participation percentages across all available grade levels (3 through 8) where a regular assessment was administered, for reading and math separately. The numerator for calculating the participation percentage of CWD who took regular Statewide assessments with and without accommodations for each grade level with available data is the number of CWD participating with and without accommodations in regular Statewide assessments in SY 2021–2022, and the denominator is the number of all CWD participants and non-participants in regular and alternate Statewide assessments in SY 2021–2022, excluding medical emergencies. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading). The numerator for calculating the percentage of CWD who took regular Statewide assessments in SY 2021–2022 with and without accommodations is the sum of the participation percentages for each grade level in SY 2021–2022, and the denominator is the number of grade levels where the test was administered. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading).
(Data source: EDFacts SY 2021–2022; data extracted 4/5/23)

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 the most recently administered NAEP. As explained in footnote 11, given that data from the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE (i.e., 2019) was not comparable to the data from the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (i.e., 2022), OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2023 determination. Therefore, this results element was not a factor in 2023 determinations for the Entities.

Percentage 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 the most recently administered NAEP. As explained in footnote 11, given that data from the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE (i.e., 2019) was not comparable to the data from the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (i.e., 2022), OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2023 determination. Therefore, this results element was not a factor in 2023 determinations for the Entities.

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 for SYs 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018‑2019, 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 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019, then multiplying the result by 100.[12]
(Data source: EDFacts SYs 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019; data extracted 5/25/22, 5/26/21, 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, 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 diploma for SYs 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019, 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 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019, then multiplying the result by 100.
(Data source: EDFacts SYs 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019; data extracted 5/25/22, 5/26/21, 5/27/20)

Scoring of the Results Matrix

In the attached Entity-specific 2023 Part B Results Matrix, an Entity received points as follows for the Results Elements:

• An Entity’s participation rates on regular Statewide assessments were assigned scores of ‘2’, ‘1’ or ‘0’ based on an analysis of the participation rates across all States and Entities. The participation rates for the Entities were calculated based on an average of participation rates across all available grade levels (3 through 8) in which the assessment was administered. The calculation is done separately by subject (math and reading). A score of ‘2’ was assigned if at least 90% of CWD in the Entity participated in the regular Statewide assessment; a score of ‘1’ if the participation rate for CWD was 80% to 89%; and a score of ‘0’ if the participation rate for CWD was less than 80%.
• Each Entity’s data on the percentage of CWD who exited school by dropping out were rank-ordered, and the top, middle, and bottom thirds were determined using tertiles. The exiting percentages for the Entities were calculated using the percentage of CWD exiting school by dropping out in SYs 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019, and points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States and Entities (e., those with the lowest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, percentages that fell in the middle tertile of States and Entities received a ‘1’, and percentages that fell in the bottom tertile of States and Entities (i.e., those with the highest percentage) received a ‘0’.
• Each Entity’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 2020–2021, 2019–2020, and 2018–2019, and points were assigned. The percentages that fell in the top tertile of States and Entities (e., those with the highest percentage) received a score of ‘2’, percentages that fell in the middle tertile of States and Entities received a ‘1’, and percentages that fell in the bottom tertile of States and Entities (i.e., those with the lowest percentage) received a ‘0’.

The following table identifies how each of the Results Elements was scored:

Using the cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using as the numerator the actual points the Entity received in its scoring under the Results Elements, the Results Matrix reflects a Results Score, which is combined with the Compliance Score to calculate the Entity’s RDA Percentage.

C. 2023 RDA Percentage and 2023 Determination

The Entity’s RDA Percentage was calculated by adding 40% of the Entity’s Results Score and 60% of the Entity’s Compliance Score. As explained on page five above, while Indicator 4B data was a factor in each Entity’s 2023 Compliance Matrix, no Entity’s 2023 determination was negatively impacted due solely to its Indicator 4B data — specifically, if an Entity’s RDA Percentage is in the Needs Assistance range instead of Meets Requirements range based solely on Indicator 4B data, the Entity’s 2023 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements; likewise, if an Entity’s RDA Percentage is in the Needs Intervention range instead of Needs Assistance range based solely on Indicator 4B data, the Entity’s 2023 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance. The Entity’s RDA Determination is defined as follows:

Meets Requirements
An Entity’s 2023 RDA Determination is Meets Requirements if the RDA Percentage is at least 80%,[13] unless the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.

Needs Assistance
An Entity’s 2023 RDA Determination is Needs Assistance if the RDA Percentage is at least 60% but less than 80%. An Entity’s determination would also be Needs Assistance if its RDA Determination percentage is 80% or above, but the Department has imposed Specific Conditions on the Entity’s last three (FFYs 2020, 2021, and 2022) IDEA Part B grant awards, and those Specific Conditions are in effect at the time of the 2023 determination.

Needs Intervention
An Entity’s 2023 RDA Determination is Needs Intervention if the RDA Percentage is less than 60%.

Needs Substantial Intervention
The Department did not make a determination of Needs Substantial Intervention for any State or Entity in 2023.

[1] When providing exiting data under Section 618 of the IDEA, Entities are required to report, among other things, 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 stated 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 higher 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.”

[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.

[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 Department 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 determining 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 compliance criteria for 95% and 75% for:

• the timeliness and accuracy of data reported by the Entity under Sections 616 and 618 of the IDEA; and
• the Entity’s FFY 2021 data, reported under Section 618 of the IDEA, for the timeliness of State complaint and due 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 2020 for which 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 2020 for the indicator.

[7] If an Entity’s FFY 2021 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 Entity’s data are not valid and reliable is contained in the OSEP Response to the Entity’s FFY 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool.

[8] If an Entity reported no FFY 2021 data 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.

[9] In OSEP’s July 19, 2022, guidance titled Questions and Answers: Addressing the Needs of Children with Disabilities and IDEA’s Discipline Provisions, at Question L-6, OSEP reiterated that factors it may consider in determining reasonableness of a State’s methodology include whether none, or a very low percentage of, the State’s LEAs are being examined for significant discrepancy under the State’s chosen methodology, and whether statistically sound alternative methodologies exist or are being used by similarly-situated States.

[10] 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 2021 SPP/APR in the EMAPS SPP/APR reporting tool. On page one of the rubric, entitled “Part B Timely and Accurate 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. The Entity’s Section 618 data is scored based on information provided to OSEP on Section 618 data timeliness, completeness, and edit checks from EDFacts. 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 inserted into the Compliance Matrix.

[11] The BIE is the only Entity for which NAEP data are applicable as a results element. However, OSEP did not use NAEP data in making the BIE’s 2023 determination because the NAEP data available for the BIE were not comparable to the NAEP data available for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico; specifically, the most recently administered NAEP for the BIE is 2019, whereas the most recently administered NAEP for the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico is 2022.

[12] 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.

[13] In determining whether an Entity has met this 80% matrix criterion for a Meets Requirements determination, the Department will round up from 79.5% (but no lower) to 80%. Similarly, in determining whether an Entity has met the 60% matrix criterion for a Needs Assistance determination discussed below, the Department will round up from 59.5% (but no lower) to 60%.

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations

(Grant Year 2021–2022 — Issued June 21, 2023)
How the department made determinations