Topics in General Supervision
South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #1: Accountability and RDA Wednesday, October 9, 2019 | 3:00-4:30 pm CT
Table of Contents
Agenda 2
Webinar PowerPoint 4
RDA Core Principles 93
South Dakota 2019 Part B Results Driven Accountability Matrix 94
2019 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA 96
Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement 100
Q&A on Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement 107
Topics in General Supervision
South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #1: Accountability and RDA Wednesday, October 9, 2019 | 3:00-4:30 pm CT
Purpose of the Webinar Series
The South Dakota Department of Education (SD DOE), Special Education Programs, is providing a series
of webinars for Local Education Agency (LEA) Special Education Directors with information on selected
components of general supervision.
Outcomes
By participating in this webinar, participants will:
Identify monitoring as a general supervision responsibility of the SEA.
Be familiar with the specific federal and State regulations on monitoring.
Understand how all components of general supervision are included in the monitoring of LEAs.
Become familiar with South Dakota’s accountability system.
Co-Facilitators
Wendy Trujillo, Assistant Director, South Dakota Department of Education
Melissa Flor, Program Specialist, South Dakota Department of Education
Mark Gabrylczyk, Program Specialist, Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE)
AGENDA
I. Getting Started! Wendy/Mark
Opening remarks
Briefly review the webinar series: components of general supervision
Future webinar topics and dates
Mentoring for LEA Directors
Agenda review for today’s topic
II. The Federal Perspective: Accountability Mark
SEA responsibility for a system of general supervision: Accountability
Integration of the components of general supervision
Data sources for general supervision accountability
The emergence of accountability (RDA)
OSEP’s vision for RDA
Central question: How do we merge monitoring for results and compliance into one
accountability system?
Q & A on federal information
III. The State Perspective Wendy
Introduction and roles of State team members
Purpose of the Accountability Review
Review of the Process
Overview Results Driven Accountability
IV. Q&A on the State Perspective Wendy
Questions for SD DOE staff on the accountability process
V. Summary and Next Steps Mark
Stay tuned for the October webinar – Child Count
Webinar evaluation via Survey Monkey
Thanks for Participating!
PLEASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J9ZXMP3
Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education
South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series
Webinar #1: Accountability and
RDA
• Identify the components of the generalsupervision system;
• Provide an overview of regulations relatedto selected general supervision topics toLEA Directors; and
• Provide an opportunity for Q&A on thespecific topics in general supervision.
Purpose of the Webinar Series
October 9th Accountability/RDANovember 14th Child Count
December 12th Dispute Resolution
January 9th SPP/APR
February 6th Budget/Fiscal
March 12th Data
Webinar Schedule
• Wendy Otheim-
Contact person for those interested in this
new opportunity offered through the Council of
Administrators for Special Education (CASE).
Mentors are available throughout South Dakota
Assistance for new special education directors with
questions they may have.
Contact info:
South Dakota Special Education Director Mentoring
Participants will:
• Identify monitoring as a general supervision
responsibility of the SEA.
• Be familiar with the specific Federal and State
regulations on monitoring.
• Understand how all components of general
supervision are included in monitoring of LEAs.
• Become familiar with South Dakota’s monitoring
system under Results-Driven Accountability
(RDA).
Outcomes for Today
• Agenda
• PPT Handout
Federal Materials – Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)
• RDA Core Values• Part B Indicators- Annual Performance Report• How the Department Made Determinations in 2019
– South Dakota RDA Matrix• 2019 Fact Sheet: Determination Letters on State Implementation• Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement, OSEP, 2006.
• Questions and Answers on Monitoring Technical Assistance and Enforcement, OSEP, 2009.
• RDA Charts from OSEP, 2014.
Materials and Resources
What is Results Driven Accountability (RDA)?
Interactive Poll
In
Interactive Poll
Big Picture!
IDEA Part B—Reauthorization 2004
• Sec. 611 AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
• Sec. 612 STATE ELIGIBILITY.• Sec. 613 LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.• Sec. 614 EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS,
INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.
• Sec. 615 PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.• Sec. 616 MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND
ENFORCEMENT.• Sec. 617 ADMINISTRATION.• Sec. 618 PROGRAM INFORMATION.• Sec. 619 PRESCHOOL GRANTS.
34 CFR § 300.149
SPP & State Goals with
Measurable Targets
FiscalManagement
Integrated Onsite & Offsite
Monitoring Activities
Effective Policies &
Procedures
Data on Processes &
Results
Improvement, Correction,
Incentives & Sanctions
Componentsof General
Supervision
Effective Dispute
Resolution
Targeted Technical
Assistance & Professional
Development
Accountability!!!
Section 616 of the 2004 Amendment says,
“The primary focus of Federal and State
monitoring activities:
A. Improving educational results and functional
outcomes for all children with disabilities; and
B. Ensuring that States meet those requirements…with a
particular emphasis on those requirements that are
most closely related to improving educational
results for children with disabilities.”
What It’s All About!
A System of General Supervision
All States have a responsibility, under IDEA, to have a system of special education general supervision that monitors the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by school districts (LEAs) and charter schools.
34 CFR § 300.149
• A State’s monitoring system must integrate
across all components of its general
supervision system.
• Multiple data sources and methods are
used to monitor every LEA.
• States determine what data will inform
their determination process, and have the
greatest impact on results.
Integration of Components
General Supervision Component Types of Data
SPP/APR Targets for Indicators (Compliance and Results)
Policies and Procedures Comprehensive Plans/Policies, Disproportionality
Fiscal Accountability Maintenance of Effort (MOE), Appropriate use of IDEA funds
Processes and Results Section 618 (Child Count), Discipline, LRE
Improvements, Incentives, Sanctions Continuing noncompliance
Dispute Resolution Complaints, mediations, due process hearings
Sources/Types Data
The Turning Point
“We have to expect the very best from our students – and tell the truth about student
performance so that we can give all students the supports and services they need. The
best way to do that is by focusing on results.”
Sec. of Education Arne DuncanRDA Press Release, March 2012
Why the Emergence of RDA?
The data on compliance
over recent years is strong.
The data on results does
not show the same trajectory.
• Performance of subgroups impacting
accountability status.
Why the Emergence of RDA?
2017 Reading State Snapshot ReportNation (public) ■ Grade 4 ■ Public Schools
2017 Reading State Snapshot ReportNation (public) ■ Grade 8 ■ Public Schools
Current States that Meets Requirements under RDA-2019
Arizona Massachusetts OhioConnecticut Minnesota PennsylvaniaFlorida Missouri South DakotaIndiana Montana VirginiaKansas North Dakota West VirginiaKentucky Nebraska WisconsinMaine New Jersey Wyoming
Changing Context
RDA represents a shift from
compliance-based monitoringto an accountability system
based on differentiated monitoring and support.
(Results Driven Accountability: Differentiated Monitoring and Support Engagement Decisions, OSEP Webinar, 2016)
Organizational Assessment of Risk Factors (OSEP-DMS)
Differentiated Monitoring and Support
Focus resources on those States/LEAs with
the greatest needs.
OSEP’s Vision For RDA
All components of an accountability system
will be aligned in a manner that best supports
States in improving
results for infants,
toddlers, children,
and youth with
disabilities and
their families.
OSEP’s Components of RDA
• State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) measures results and compliance.
• Determinations reflect State performance on results as well as compliance.
• Differentiated monitoring and technical assistance support improvement in all States, but especially low performing States.
• To help close the achievement gap for
students with disabilities;
• To move away from a one-size-fits-all,
compliance-based approach;
• To create a balanced system that looks at
how well students with disabilities are
being educated, in addition to continuing
efforts to protect their rights.
Priorities of RDA
Implications for States
Central question: How do we merge monitoring for
results and compliance into one system?
– Results is the driver for data
drill down; compliance is a
piece of that data.
– Compliance is a means to
an end—not the end itself.
SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMSSD DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
SPECIAL EDUCATION STAFF
Linda Turner
Director
Legislative Committees Rep.
Federal IDEA Application
Wendy Trujillo
Assistant Director
Dispute Resolution Coordinator
State Performance Plan
SD Advisory Panel for Children with Disabilities
Special Education Listserv
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
Vacant, Alternate Assessment Indicator 1& 3
Alternate Assessment
1% Waiver
Region 4 Program Representative
Jodi Berscheid, 619 Coordinator
Indicator 6, 7, 11, & 12
Battelle Developmental Inventory II
ECO Listserv
Region 5 & 6 Program Representative
Temporarily Region 4
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
Rebecca Cain, PD & Behavior Specialist Indicators 2 & 4
MTSS/PBIS
School Climate
Suspension/Expulsion
Dyslexia
ELL
Region 2 (Sioux Falls) Program Representative
Melissa Flor, Accountability Specialist Indicator 9 & 10 Disproportionality
Accountability
Results Driven Accountability
Region 7 Program Representative
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
Beth Schiltz, Accommodation & HS Transition Specialist
Indicator 1, 13, & 14
Transition
Accommodations
Region 3 Program Representative
Brandi Gerry, Implementation Specialist
SSIP (State Systemic Improvement Plan – Indicator 17)
SPDG (State Personnel Development Grant)
Region 1 Program Representative
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
Vacant, Data Manager
Data
Child Count
Vacant, Secretary
MONTHLY SPED DIRECTOR CALLS
Occur the third Tuesday of every month @ 10am CT
September 17th, 2019
October 15th, 2019
November 19th, 2019
December 17th, 2019
January 21st, 2020
February 18th, 2020
March – No Webinar Sped Conference
April 21st, 2020
May 19th, 2020
https://doe.sd.gov/sped/directors.aspx
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
MONTHLY SPED NEWSLETTERS
Sent out the second week of each month on the Sped Listserv
Professional Development
Federal and State highlights
Sped & DOE Resources
Join the listserv at http://www.k12.sd.us/Listserv/DOESpecialEd.htm
COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov
2019 SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMSACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS
UNDERSTANDING THE PATH
Improving Educational
Results
Meeting Compliance
Students who are College,
Career and Life Ready
WHICH DISTRICTS ARE REVIEWED?
5 year cycle
Other Reasons Dispute resolution findings
Indicators 4B, 9 and 10 Disproportionality
Significant Disproportionality
Tentative Schedule Posted on
Accountability Process Website
https://doe.sd.gov/sped/accountability.aspx
WHO PARTICIPATES
IN THE PROCESS?
STATE LEVEL STAFF
Accountability Specialist
• DOE• Oversee • Corrective Action Plans• Correspondence
Special Education Program Staff
• Review team members
CONTRACTORS
Results Driven Accountability Specialists
(RDA)
• Leads the process• Communicates with
district• Technical assistance• Corrective Action Plan• Member of the review
team
Transition Service Liaison Project
• Transition Liaison Staff• Reviews transition files for
ages 15 years and older• Indicator 13 Data
Collection• Provides technical
assistance for high school transition
DISTRICT STAFF
• Communicates with team lead• Notifies sped staff• Make electronic copies for child count verification• Create a list of all initial and re-evaluations by staff within last year• Work with Team Lead on development of the review schedule and technical
assistance needs
Special Education Director or designee
• Attend file reviews• Assist reviewer with identify items in file and explain process• Take notes on potential compliance, best practice suggestions, and items to
discuss with administration • Bring questions regarding special education process
Special Education Staff
PROCESS OVERVIEW
Announcement Letter
Pre-site Activities
On-Site Activities
Corrective Action Plan
Closing the File
ANNOUNCEMENT LETTER
Special Education Programs sends a letter each spring informing districts that they will participate in an accountability review in the upcoming school year. Sent to Superintendents and Special Education Directors
PRE-SITE ACTIVITIES
PRE-SITE ACTIVITIESBetween August and October
Team Leader – sends an email to make initial contact with the District Superintendent and Special Education Director
o At this point the district’s primary contact person will be established.
• Schedule Letter – delivered through email and hard copy
o Provides the on-site review date(s)
o Schedule of the Review Day(s)
o Identifies the Review Team Members
CHILD COUNT VALIDATION
The team leader will validate the December child count.
An electronic copy of the front page of each IEP in effect at the current December child count will needed to be given to the team lead. District will also include a copy of the official child count from Launch Pad.
Note: child count validation is need as part
of a fiscal audit.
STATE CERTIFIED STAFF
The team lead will review the certification and job duties of district staff.
TRANSITION FILES
State Performance Plan Indicator 13 data is collected
Transition files across disability categories
At a minimum: 2 files per transition age teacher
Show evidence of inviting an outside agency process
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS
Prior to the on-site review, the district will submit the most updated comprehensive plan to the team lead for review.
Local education agency comprehensive plans -- Contents.Each local education agency must have a current comprehensive plan approved by the school board on file with the district superintendent or designee. Documentation supporting the implementation of the local school district's comprehensive plan shall be maintained by the district for review by Special Education Programs staff during onsite monitoring visits. Districts shall update comprehensive plans consistent with § 24:05:21:01.02 and recertify their content annually.
ON-SITE ACTIVITIES
ON-SITE GENERAL SCHEDULE
Entrance Conference
Review team will meet to discuss assignments
File Reviews begin/Interviews
Lunch Break
Teacher file Reviews/Interviews cont…
Review team compile review data
Exit Conference
ENTRANCE ACTIVITIES
Entrance Conferenceo District’s contact determines who from the district attends
o Introduction and overview of the day
• The review team will meet before getting started with district staff
DISTRICT INTERVIEWS
Interviews will be conducted.
The team leader will meet with the Special Education Director to review the district’s policies, procedures, and practices.
FILE REVIEWS
Purpose: Ensure compliance
All Special Education Teachers including early childhood and Speech Pathologists will have at least one file reviewed with a review team member.
Provide technical assistance
How are the files selected: Special Education staff will identify 2 files that recently completed an initial
or re-evaluation.
Team leader will select student files to be reviewed based on the Sped Teachers caseload and a representative sample of disability categories, ranging from age 3-21, and other criteria.
Age 3-21 files
FILE REVIEWS
Student Files should contain:
Current evaluation reports
Individual Education Plan (IEP)
Parental Prior Written Notice (PPWN) and PPWN consent
Initial consent document
Behavior Plans, if applicable
Note: If potential non-compliance is found, the staff person being reviewed will be asked to make copies to support findings.
Prepare for file reviews: Utilize the Internal Review form on Accountability Process website, IEP TA guide and Eligibility Tools and Resources
OTHER FILES
Out of District Placements:
Team lead will request to review files related to out of district placements.
Ensure the district has all the evaluation and IEP documentation on the student available.
Private School:
If district has private school students, team lead will request to review a sample of student files.
May discuss some information on funds utilized for private schools.
OTHER FILES
Resources:
Sped Exit Codes can be found in Student Data Collections Desk
Guide or SPED Reporting Sheets.
Data pulled from the SD STARS Exit Report after second Friday in June
A sample of the following students will be requested:
Students, who graduated, will be pulled to ensure that PPWN was
issued and the graduation data was entered correctly in campus.
Summary of Performance for graduates and age out students will
also be checked.
STATE/DISTRICT ASSESSMENT: ACCOMMODATIONS AND ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT
The team will also be looking at accommodations that are provided during the State/District assessments ensure they are documented.
If district had students take alternate assessment, the review team will take a sample ensure students meet the criteria and IEP has appropriate documentation.
INDICATOR 13: TRANSITION IEP SECTION
In addition to age 3-21 case manager files for review:
A sample of transition files age 16-21 will be selected based on a representative sample of disability categories and number of transition students served.
The team will look at a minimum of 2 files per teacher of transition age.
At a minimum, one file per teacher must show evidence of invitation of outside agency process.
EXIT ACTIVITIES The Review Team will meet to compile the data
gathered throughout the review.
Exit Conferenceo District contact will determine who attends the exit
conference. We welcome all district staff.
o The team lead will go over positive feedback and potential findings
o The final determinations of non-compliance will be made by Special Education Programs
POST-SITE ACTIVITIES
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
Purpose:
OSEP Memo 09-02 identified two federal requirements:
o Prong 1
Fix the file in which non-compliance was identified.
If required, participate in technical assistance or training
o Prong 2
The district will provide additional documentation as evidence of continued correction of non-compliance.
INITIAL CAP PROCESS
Compile Evidence
Draft CAP
Reviewed and Finalized by SEP
Sent to District
Team Lead and District Complete Process
CAP APPEALS
Appealing the CAPo If the district feels an error was
made after reviewing the CAP
o District submits in writing, as soon as possible, the error made and support your finding to the State Accountability Program Specialist.
o Supporting evidence– SEP will review additional documentation submitted during appeal as well as the documentation copied during review to make a determination.
CAP TIMELINE A copy of the Accountability CAP will be sent in an email and a hard
copy by mail.
o Prong 1
60 days to complete Prong 1 corrections
Individual files requiring immediate correction
o Prong 2
1 year timeline starts from report date
Districts notified at 9 months if corrections are not being submitted
Additional IEP documentation and/or update policy, procedure, and practice.
ARSD 24:05:20:20
Note: if not completed in a timely manner, sanctions could be applied.
ARSD 24:05:20:23
CAP REPORTS
Public Report• Lists the ARSDs that are in non-
compliance• Posted to the State website
District Report• Prong 1• Student SIMS #/ Teacher Name• Specific non-compliance issued• What documents need to be submitted
• Prong 2• Requirements to show continued
compliance
CAP CLOSURE
District has met requirements for Prong 1 and Prong 2:
Team lead will notify the Accountability Program Specialist
Accountability Program Specialist will send the district a letter stating all items in the CAP have been met and the CAP is closed.
CAP is sent to the Superintendent and Special Education Director
Public Report is updated and posted to the website
PROCESS COMPLETE
EXPLORING COMMON FINDINGS
Parent Prior Written Notice (PPWN) – Consent to Evaluate
The school district shall provide notice to the parent that describes any evaluation procedures the district proposes or refuses to conduct.
The school district shall administer all evaluations needed based on suspected disability category and concerns team has in order to have comprehensive evaluation to make eligibility determinations.
EXPLORING COMMON FINDINGS
Measurable Annual Goals Accommodations
Services documentation
Transition Components
COMMON FINDINGS CONT…
PPWN - Content• The notice must include the following:• A description of the action proposed or refused by the
district, an explanation of why the district proposes or refuses to take the action, and a description of any other options the IEP team considered and the reasons why those options were rejected;
• A description of each evaluation procedure, assessment, record, or report that the district uses as a basis for the proposal or refusal;
• A description of any other factors which are relevant to the district's proposal or refusal
• 5 day notice documentation • More information can be found at
http://doe.sd.gov/sped/webinars.aspx
ARSD 24:05:30:05
COMMON FINDINGS CONT…
Reports:
Skill based was completed in all areas.
Transition report created
Reports includes:● Assessment date(s),
● Name of the evaluator(s),
● Sources from which the
information was gathered
RESULTS DRIVEN ACCOUNTABILITY(RDA)
PURPOSE OF RDA Establish a meaningful and continuous process focused on improving
academic results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities by connecting local data to improvement efforts.
Maintain a high level of compliance with IDEA federal regulations and South Dakota Administrative Rules for special education.
Support local districts in the process of self-assessment, evaluation, and improvement of compliance and results-focused efforts.
Link program improvement activities with multi-year planning and supports.
COMPONENT OF THE PROCESS
Risk Rubric Notification in March
Overview Meeting Data Retreat
Root Cause and Action Plan Implementation Internal Review
ProcessValidation Meeting
RISK RUBRIC COMPONENTS
Identified areas
District data compared to State Performance Plan targets every year
Districts not meeting target will look at making progress previous 3 years.
Districts will be placed in size category (small, medium, large)
DISTRICT LEVELS
Level 3
LEVEL 3 DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
3 years Notification in March
Assign RDA Coach
Overview Meeting
Develop a RDA committee Data Retreat Root Cause
and Action Plan Implementation
Internal Review Process
Validation Meeting
LEVEL 2 REQUIREMENTS
Every year designation
RDA Coach - limited
Overview
Develop a RDA Committee
Regional Data Retreat
Root Cause and Develop Action Plan (Coach Support)
Implementation (coach support)
Sped Internal Review
LOW NEEDS – LEVEL 1
(Optional) -Assembles RDA Committee to review SPED data, conduct root cause analysis, and/or develop action plan.
(Optional) -Participate in a local data retreat.
Access statewide trainings
Future:
Every SPED teacher in district will complete internal review of compliance practices and the district SPED director submits a statement of assurance of completion of review.
Submits Professional Learning Plan to SDDOE. (Form will be given by the state).
Years Identified:
Every year designation could change
FULL IMPLEMENTATION
QUESTIONS:
REGARDING THE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESS CAN BE DIRECTED
THE SPECIAL EDUCATION ACCOUNTABILITY SPECIALIST AT 605-773-3678
GENERAL SPECIAL EDUCATION QUESTIONS
Contact Regional Representative assigned to your district.
https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/0819-SPED-reps.pdf
RESOURCES
https://doe.sd.gov/sped/index.aspxo Main Special Education Page
https://doe.sd.gov/sped/accountability.aspxo Internal Review Form
• https://doe.sd.gov/sped/IEP.aspxo IEP Forms
o Eligibility Documents
Transition IEP Plan
Employment
Post-Secondary EducationIndependent Living
Events
Contact Us
www.tslp.org
• Familiarize yourself with the appropriate
regulations.
• Be aware of what the state’s monitoring
system looks like and how it impacts your
district.
• Be familiar with resources available.
• Be proactive!
Summary and Next Steps
Survey Monkey Link:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/J9ZXMP3
Thanks in advance for taking a few
moments to complete!
Webinar Evaluation
Keep the main thing
the main thing!
O F F I C E O F S P E C I A L E D U C AT I O N P R O G R A M S
Results-Driven Accountability
Core Principles
The Office of Special Education Programs’ (OSEP’s) vision for Results-Driven
Accountability (RDA) is that OSEP will target its work and investments to best support
States in improving results for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities.
The following core principles underlie and will guide OSEP’s RDA work:
1. OSEP is developing the RDA system in partnership with our stakeholders.
2. The RDA system is transparent and understandable to States and the general
public, especially individuals with disabilities and their families.
3. The RDA system drives improved outcomes for all children and youth with
disabilities regardless of their age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender,
socioeconomic status, or location.
4. The RDA system ensures the protection of the individual rights of each child or
youth with a disability and their families, regardless of his/her age, disability,
race/ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location.
5. The RDA system provides differentiated incentives, supports, and
interventions based on each State’s unique strengths, progress, challenges,
and needs.
6. The RDA system encourages States to direct their resources to where they
can have the greatest positive impact on outcomes and the protection of
individual rights for all children and youth with disabilities, and minimizes State
burden and duplication of effort.
7. The RDA system is responsive to the needs and expectations of the ultimate
consumers (i.e., children and youth with disabilities and their families) as they
identify them.
South Dakota 2019 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix
Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination1 Percentage (%) Determination
89.58 Meets Requirements
Results and Compliance Overall Scoring Total Points Available Points Earned Score (%)
Results 24 19 79.17 Compliance 20 20 100
2019 Part B Results Matrix
Reading Assessment Elements Reading Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
94 2
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
89 1
Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
33 2
Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
90 1
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
36 2
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
85 1
Math Assessment Elements Math Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
94 2
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments
89 1
Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
53 2
Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
92 1
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
28 2
Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
86 1
1 For a detailed explanation of how the Compliance Score, Results Score, and the Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination were calculated, review "How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2019: Part B."
2 | P a g e
Exiting Data Elements Exiting Data Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Dropped Out 23 1 Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Graduated with a Regular High School Diploma1
62 0
2019 Part B Compliance Matrix Part B Compliance Indicator2 Performance
(%) Full Correction of
Findings of Noncompliance
Identified in FFY 2016
Score
Indicator 4B: Significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of suspension and expulsion, and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with specified requirements.
0 N/A 2
Indicator 9: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification.
0 N/A 2
Indicator 10: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification.
0 N/A 2
Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation 99.89 No 2 Indicator 12: IEP developed and implemented by third birthday
97.72 Yes 2
Indicator 13: Secondary transition 93.71 Yes 2 Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data 100 2 Timely State Complaint Decisions 100 2 Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions 100 2 Longstanding Noncompliance 2
Special Conditions None Uncorrected identified noncompliance None
1 Graduated with a regular high school diploma as defined under the IDEA Section 618 State-reported data: These students exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities are eligible. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As defined in 34 CFR §300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect prior to June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degreethat is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or general educational development credential (GED).”
2 The complete language for each indicator is located in the Part B SPP/APR Indicator Measurement Table at: https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/17415
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON
STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF
IDEA Modified July 11, 2019
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
released State determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C for fiscal year 2017. The 2004 Amendments to the IDEA
require each State to develop a State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report
(APR) that 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.
The IDEA also requires each State to report 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 determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7 million
children with disabilities.
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.
For the first time in 2014, and again in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, the Department made
Part B determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making
a State’s determination. For the first time in 2015 and again in 2016, 2017 2018, and 2019, the
Department made Part C determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each
equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2018, and again in 2019, the
Department made Part B determinations for the outlying areas, freely associated States, and the
Bureau of Indian Education using both compliance and results data, with a 60% weight and 40%
2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA 2
weight respectively. 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 Lead Agencies and early
intervention service programs 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 identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions that the Department must
take under specific circumstances for States that are not determined to “meet requirements.” If a
State “needs assistance” for two 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 “needs intervention” for three
consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including
among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding
further payments to the State. Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department
must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to
the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.
2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA 3
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:
MEETS REQUIREMENTS
Arizona
Connecticut
Florida
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
North Dakota
Nebraska
New Jersey
Ohio
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
NEEDS ASSISTANCE (one year)
District of Columbia
Georgia
Republic of the Marshall Islands
Michigan
New Hampshire
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Vermont
NEEDS ASSISTANCE (two or more consecutive years)
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
American Samoa
California
Colorado
Delaware
Federated States of Micronesia
Guam
Hawaii
Iowa
Idaho
Illinois
Louisiana
Maryland
Mississippi
New Mexico
Nevada
New York
Oregon
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virgin Islands
Washington
NEEDS INTERVENTION (two years)
Palau
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
NEEDS INTERVENTION (eight consecutive years)
Bureau of Indian Education
2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA 4
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:
MEETS REQUIREMENTS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Georgia
Idaho
Kentucky
Louisiana
Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wisconsin
West Virginia
Wyoming
NEEDS ASSISTANCE (one year)
Arkansas
Kansas
Maryland
Maine
Michigan
North Carolina
New Hampshire
North Dakota
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
Tennessee
NEEDS ASSISTANCE (two or more consecutive years)
American Samoa
California
Colorado
Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands
Delaware
Florida
Guam
Hawaii
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Maine
South Carolina
Vermont
Virgin Islands
IDEA Regulations MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
AND ENFORCEMENT
The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was signed into law on Dec. 3, 2004, by President George W. Bush. The provisions of the act became effective on July 1, 2005, with the exception of some of the elements pertaining to the definition of a “highly qualified teacher” that took effect upon the signing of the act. The final regulations were published on Aug. 14, 2006. This is one in a series of documents, prepared by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education that covers a variety of high-interest topics and brings together the regulatory requirements related to those topics to support constituents in preparing to implement the new regulations.1 This document addresses final regulatory requirements regarding monitoring, enforcement, and state performance plans.
IDEA Regulations
1. Establish requirements for state monitoring, enforcement, and annual reporting.
The State must monitor the implementation of Part B, enforce Part B in accordance with theprovisions at 34 CFR 300.604(a)(1), and (a)(3), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2(v), and (c)(2), andannually report on performance under Part B.
The primary focus of the State’s monitoring activities must be on:• Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities;
and• Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the Act,
with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related toimproving educational results for children with disabilities.
As a part of its responsibilities under 34 CFR 300.600(a), the State must use quantifiable indicators and such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in the priority areas identified in 34 CFR 300.600(d), and the indicators established by the Secretary for the State performance plans.
1 Topics in this series include: Alignment With the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act; Changes in Initial Evaluation and Reevaluation; Children Enrolled by Their Parents in Private Schools; Discipline; Disproportionality and Overidentification; Early Intervening Services; Highly Qualified Teachers; Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities; Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team Meetings and Changes to the IEP; Individualized Education Program (IEP); Local Funding; Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement; National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard (NIMAS); Part C Amendments in IDEA 2004; Part C Option: Age 3 to Kindergarten Age; Procedural Safeguards: Surrogates, Notice and Consent; Procedural Safeguards: Mediation; Procedural Safeguards: Resolution Meetings and Due Process Hearings; Secondary Transition; State Complaint Procedures; State Funding; and Statewide and Districtwide Assessments. Documents are available on the IDEA Web site at: http://IDEA.ed.gov.
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 1
The State must monitor the local educational agencies (LEAs) located in the State, using quantifiable indicators in each of the following priority areas, and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequately measure performance in those areas: • Provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive
environment (LRE). • State exercise of general supervision, including child find, effective monitoring, the use
of resolution meetings, mediation, and a system of transition services as defined in 34 CFR 300.43 and in 20 U.S.C. 1437(a)(9).
• Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification.
[34 CFR 300.600] [20 U.S.C. 1416(a)] 2. Require that states develop performance plans.
Not later than December 3, 2005, each State must have in place a performance plan that evaluates the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act, and describes how the State will improve such implementation: • Each State must submit the State’s performance plan to the Secretary for approval in
accordance with the approval process described in section 616(c) of the Act. • Each State must review its State performance plan at least once every six years, and
submit any amendments to the Secretary. • As part of the State performance plan, each State must establish measurable and rigorous
targets for the indicators established by the Secretary under the priority areas described in 34 CFR 300.600(d).
[34 CFR 300.601(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)]
3. Require state data collection. Each State must collect valid and reliable information as needed to report annually to the Secretary on the indicators established by the Secretary for the State performance plans: • If the Secretary permits States to collect data on specific indicators through State
monitoring or sampling, and the State collects the data through State monitoring or sampling, the State must collect data on those indicators for each LEA at least once during the period of the State performance plan.
• Nothing in Part B of the Act shall be construed to authorize the development of a nationwide database of personally identifiable information on individuals involved in studies or other collections of data under Part B of the Act.
[34 CFR 300.601(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)]
4. Require state use of targets to analyze performance and report annually.
Each State must use the targets established in the State’s performance plan under 34 CFR 300.601 and the priority areas described in 34 CFR 300.600(d) to analyze the performance of each LEA.
[34 CFR 300.602(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(i)]
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 2
The State must: • Report annually to the public on the performance of each LEA located in the State on the
targets in the State’s performance plan; and • Make the State’s performance plan available through public means, including by posting
on the web site of the State educational agency (SEA), distribution to the media, and distribution through public agencies.
[34 CFR 300.602(b)(1)(i)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)] If the State, in meeting the requirements of 34 CFR 300.602(b)(1)(i), collects performance data through State monitoring or sampling, the State must include in its report under 34 CFR 300.602 (b)(1)(i)(A) the most recently available performance data on each LEA, and the date the data were obtained.
[34 CFR 300.602(b)(1)(ii)]
The State must report annually to the Secretary on the performance of the State under the State’s performance plan. The State must not report to the public or the Secretary any information on performance that would result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information about individual children, or where the available data are insufficient to yield statistically reliable information.
[34 CFR 300.602(b)(2) and (3)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) and (iii)] 5. Require annual review by the Secretary of state performance reports and
determinations by the Secretary regarding state performance.
The Secretary annually reviews the State’s performance report submitted pursuant to 34 CFR 300.602(b)(2) and, based on the information provided by the State in the State’s annual performance report, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information made available, the Secretary determines if the State: • Meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of the Act; • Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act; • Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act; or • Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act.
[34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(d)(1) and (2)(A)]
For determinations made under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(iii) and (b)(1)(iv), the Secretary provides reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing on those determinations. • This hearing consists of an opportunity to meet with the Assistant Secretary for Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services to demonstrate why the Department should not make the determination described in 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1).
[34 CFR 300.603(b)(2)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(d)(2)(B)] 6. Require technical assistance and enforcement actions.
Needs assistance. If the Secretary determines, for two consecutive years, that a State needs assistance under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(ii) in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act, the Secretary takes one or more of the following actions:
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 3
• Advises the State of available sources of technical assistance that may help the State address the areas in which the State needs assistance, which may include assistance from the Office of Special Education Programs, other offices of the Department of Education, other Federal agencies, technical assistance providers approved by the Secretary, and other federally funded nonprofit agencies, and requires the State to work with appropriate entities. Such technical assistance may include: o The provision of advice by experts to address the areas in which the State needs
assistance, including explicit plans for addressing the area for concern within a specified period of time;
o Assistance in identifying and implementing professional development, instructional strategies, and methods of instruction that are based on scientifically based research;
o Designating and using distinguished superintendents, principals, special education administrators, special education teachers, and other teachers to provide advice, technical assistance, and support; and
o Devising additional approaches to providing technical assistance, such as collaborating with institutions of higher education, educational service agencies, national centers of technical assistance supported under Part D of the Act, and private providers of scientifically based technical assistance.
• Directs the use of State-level funds under section 611(e) of the Act on the area or areas in which the State needs assistance.
• Identifies the State as a high-risk grantee and impose special conditions on the State's grant under Part B of the Act.
[34 CFR 300.604(a)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(1)]
Needs intervention. If the Secretary determines, for three or more consecutive years, that a State needs intervention under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(iii) in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act, the following shall apply: • The Secretary may take any of the actions described in 34 CFR 300.604(a)(a) (Needs
Assistance). • The Secretary takes one or more of the following actions:
o Requires the State to prepare a corrective action plan or improvement plan if the Secretary determines that the State should be able to correct the problem within one year.
o Requires the State to enter into a compliance agreement under section 457 of the General Education Provisions Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1221 et seq. (GEPA), if the Secretary has reason to believe that the State cannot correct the problem within one year.
o For each year of the determination, withholds not less than 20 percent and not more than 50 percent of the State's funds under section 611(e) of the Act, until the Secretary determines the State has sufficiently addressed the areas in which the State needs intervention.
o Seeks to recover funds under section 452 of GEPA. o Withholds, in whole or in part, any further payments to the State under Part B of the
Act.
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 4
o Refers the matter for appropriate enforcement action, which may include referral to the Department of Justice.
[34 CFR 300.604(b)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(2)] Needs substantial intervention. Notwithstanding 34 CFR 300.604 (a) (Needs Assistance) or 34 CFR 300.604(b) (Needs intervention), at any time that the Secretary determines that a State needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the Act or that there is a substantial failure to comply with any condition of an SEA's or LEA's eligibility under Part B of the Act, the Secretary takes one or more of the following actions: • Recovers funds under section 452 of GEPA. • Withholds, in whole or in part, any further payments to the State under Part B of the Act. • Refers the case to the Office of the Inspector General at the Department of Education. • Refers the matter for appropriate enforcement action, which may include referral to the
Department of Justice. [34 CFR 300.604(c)] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(3)]
Report to Congress. The Secretary reports to the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate within 30 days of taking enforcement action pursuant to 34 CFR 300.604(a) (Needs Assistance), (b) (Needs Intervention), or (c) (Needs Substantial Intervention), on the specific action taken and the reasons why enforcement action was taken.
[34 CFR 300.604(d)] [20 U.S.C. 1416 (e)(5)] 7. Describe the circumstances under which the Secretary may withhold a state’s funds.
Prior to withholding any funds under Part B of the Act, the Secretary provides reasonable notice and an opportunity for a hearing to the SEA involved, pursuant to the procedures in 34 CFR 300.180 through 300.183. Pending the outcome of any hearing to withhold payments 34 CFR 300.605(a), the Secretary may suspend payments to a recipient, suspend the authority of the recipient to obligate funds under Part B of the Act, or both, after the recipient has been given reasonable notice and an opportunity to show cause why future payments or authority to obligate funds under Part B of the Act should not be suspended. If the Secretary determines that it is appropriate to withhold further payments under 34 CFR 300.604(b)(2) or (c)(2), the Secretary may determine: • That the withholding will be limited to programs or projects, or portions of programs or
projects, that affected the Secretary’s determination under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1); or • That the SEA must not make further payments under Part B of the Act to specified State
agencies or LEAs that caused or were involved in the Secretary’s determination under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1).
Until the Secretary is satisfied that the condition that caused the initial withholding has been substantially rectified: • Payments to the State under Part B of the Act must be withheld in whole or in part; and
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 5
• Payments by the SEA under Part B of the Act must be limited to State agencies andLEAs whose actions did not cause or were not involved in the Secretary’s determinationunder 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1), as the case may be.
[34 CFR 300.605] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(4), (e)(6)]
8. Require states to notify the public of the pendency of an enforcement action.
Any State that has received notice under 34 CFR 300.603(b)(1)(ii)-(iv) must, by means of apublic notice, take such measures as may be necessary to notify the public within the State ofthe pendency of an action taken pursuant to 34 CFR 300.604.
[34 CFR 300.606] [20 U.S.C. 1416(e)(7)]
9. Describe withholding procedures when responsibility for children with disabilities inadult correctional facilities has been assigned to other than the SEA.
If responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Act are met with respectto children with disabilities who are convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated inadult prisons is assigned to a public agency other than the SEA pursuant to 34 CFR300.149(d), and if the Secretary finds that the failure to comply substantially with theprovisions of Part B of the Act are related to a failure by the public agency, the Secretarytakes appropriate corrective action to ensure compliance with Part B of the Act, except that:• Any reduction or withholding of payments to the State under 34 CFR 300.604 must be
proportionate to the total funds allotted under section 611 of the Act to the State as thenumber of eligible children with disabilities in adult prisons under the supervision of theother public agency is proportionate to the number of eligible individuals with disabilitiesin the State under the supervision of the SEA; and
• Any withholding of funds under 34 CFR 300.604 must be limited to the specific agencyresponsible for the failure to comply with Part B of the Act.
[34 CFR 300.607] [20 U.S.C. 1416(h)]
10. Describe state enforcement actions when an LEA is not meeting the requirements ofPart B.
If an SEA determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B of the Act,including the targets in the State's performance plan, the SEA must prohibit the LEA fromreducing the LEA’s maintenance of effort under 34 CFR 300.203 for any fiscal year.
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to restrict a State from utilizing any other authorityavailable to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B of the Act.
[34 CFR 300.608] [20 U.S.C. 1416(f); 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11)]
11. Establish that the Secretary may use other enforcement authority to monitor andenforce Part B requirements.
Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to restrict the Secretary from utilizing anyauthority under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), including the provisions in 34
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 6
CFR parts 76, 77, 80, and 81 to monitor and enforce the requirements of the Act, including the imposition of special conditions under 34 CFR 80.12.
[34 CFR 300.609] [20 U.S.C. 1416(g)]
U.S. Department of Education Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement Office of Special Education Programs 10/04/06 Page 7
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
Revised June 2009
Regulations for Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2006, and became effective on October 13, 2006. Additional regulations were published on December 1, 2008 and became effective on December 31, 2008. Since publication of these regulations, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education (Department) has received requests for clarification of some of these regulations. This is one of a series of question and answer (Q&A) documents prepared by OSERS to address some of the most important issues raised by requests for clarification on a variety of high-interest topics. Each Q&A document will be updated to add new questions and answers as important issues arise or to amend existing questions and answers as needed.
OSERS issues this Q&A document to provide States, State educational agencies (SEAs), and local educational agencies (LEAs) with information regarding the IDEA requirements relating to monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement. This Q&A document represents the Department’s current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights for or on any person. This guidance does not impose any requirements beyond those required under applicable law and regulations.
The 2004 amendments to the IDEA included significant changes related to monitoring that placed an emphasis on improving educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities by focusing monitoring activities in certain priority areas and measuring performance using quantifiable indicators and qualitative indicators as needed to adequately measure performance. These changes affect the responsibilities of the Secretary and States in the area of monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement under the IDEA.
Requirements related to monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement are found in 34 CFR §§300.600 through 300.609 and include: (1) the Secretary’s responsibility to establish and enforce particular procedures for monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement actions; and (2) the State’s responsibility to monitor including implementing, enforcing, and annually reporting on the performance of LEAs under the IDEA through a State performance plan (SPP) and annual performance reports (APRs) under that SPP.
Changes in the Secretary’s responsibilities include the requirements for the Secretary to: (1) review and approve the SPP (34 CFR §300.601(a)(1)); (2) review States’ APRs (34 CFR §300.603(a)); (3) determine whether the States meet the requirements and purposes of Part B ofthe IDEA, need assistance, need intervention, or need substantial invention in implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA (34 CFR §300.603(b)); and (4) take certain enforcement actions (34 CFR §300.604).
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 2
Changes in the State’s responsibilities include the requirements to: (1) submit an SPP to the Secretary that includes measurable and rigorous State-established targets for indicators established by the Secretary (34 CFR §300.601(a)); (2) monitor its LEAs under the priority areas related to the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE), exercise of general supervision (including child find, effective monitoring, the use of resolution meetings, mediation and a system of transition services), and disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification (34 CFR §300.600(d)); (3) collect valid and reliable data to report annually to the Secretary on the State’s performance on the indicators in the SPP (34 CFR §300.601(b)); (4) report to the public on the performance of each of its LEAs on the targets in the SPP (34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i)(A)); and (5) carry out enforcement actions against those LEAs not meeting the requirements of Part B of the IDEA (34 CFR §§300.600(a) and 300.608). Generally, the questions and corresponding answers presented in this Q&A document required interpretation of the IDEA and its implementing regulations and the answers are not simply a restatement of the statutory or regulatory requirements. The responses presented in this document generally are informal guidance representing the interpretation of the Department of the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements in the context of the specific facts presented and are not legally binding. The Q&As in this document are not intended to be a replacement for careful study of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. The IDEA, its implementing regulations, and other important documents related to the IDEA and the regulations are found at. http://IDEA.ed.gov. If you are interested in commenting on this guidance, please e-mail your comments to [email protected] and include Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement in the subject of your e-mail or write us at the following address: Patricia Guard, U.S. Department of Education, Potomac Center Plaza, 550 12th Street, SW, room 4108, Washington, DC 20202.
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 3
Table of Contents A. State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)........................... Page 5
A-1. Are States required to report their determinations (meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention) of each LEA’s performance in their APR submitted to OSEP?
A-2. What years are covered by the SPP submitted in December 2005? A-3. OSEP published a guidance document, entitled Part B SPP/APR Related
Requirements, which contains a detailed list of statutory and regulatory requirements related to each indicator. (See: http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/IDEA/bapr/2008/5relstedrequirements081308.pdf) Are States required to monitor the requirements related to each indicator included in this document for every year that an LEA fails to meet a target in the SPP?
A-4. If a State changes or updates its SPP, must the State resubmit the entire document or
just those portions that have changed? A-5. Where should a State report on correction of noncompliance identified by OSEP in its
response to the State’s SPP/APR? A-6. When the Department changes an indicator, or the measurement for an indicator, such
as Indicator B-7 Preschool Early Childhood Outcomes, is it permissible for a State to change the baseline and targets for that indicator in its SPP?
B. Public Reporting ............................................................................................................ Page 7
B-1. How does this reporting requirement relate to the requirement, contained in 34 CFR §300.601(b)(2), that any data collected through monitoring or sampling be collected at least once during the period of the SPP?
B-2. When is a State required to report the status of each LEA regarding indicators in the SPP? B-3. May States report intermediate unit (or regional) information rather than LEA
information for LEAs where the N size (total population of children with disabilities measured by the indicator in the LEA) is too small to report results for an LEA (e.g., the LEA’s one high school has two graduates with disabilities)?
B-4. Must State reports on LEA performance on SPP targets include actual data (i.e.,
percent scores) or is it permissible for States to simply indicate whether or not the LEA met the State’s SPP targets?
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 4
C. Determinations and Enforcement ................................................................................ Page 9 C-1. When making determinations about an LEA’s performance, must States use the same
determination categories (i.e., meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention and needs substantial intervention) that OSEP uses with States?
C-2. Is the implementation of the enforcement actions related to the determinations
categories sequential? (That is, must a State be in two years of needs assistance before moving to three years of needs intervention)?
C-3. Must a State be in needs intervention for three years prior to OSEP implementing
enforcement actions (e.g., technical assistance, special conditions) or may OSEP impose enforcement earlier given a State’s especially poor performance?
C-4. Will OSEP provide an overall determination on each State’s performance, or will
there be separate determinations for each indicator? C-5. What action, if any, will OSEP take when a State’s determination status fluctuates
between the categories of needs assistance and needs intervention, but never remains in either category for two or more consecutive years?
C-6. If a State determines that an LEA cannot correct a monitoring finding within one year,
may that State take the same action available to the Secretary under section 457 of the GEPA (i.e., enter into a compliance agreement between the State and the LEA)?
C-7. States and LEAs may be in or out of compliance on specific compliance indicators
throughout the year. How will this process ensure that the determinations reflect the actual compliance status of LEAs within a State?
C-8. What are the opportunities for public input in the SPP/APR process? C-9. What factors must a State consider in making LEA determinations? C-10. What sanctions may be imposed and what enforcement actions may be taken by
SEAs under Part B of the IDEA or the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)?
C-11. Is a determination that the State makes about an LEA’s performance subject to appeal
by the LEA? C-12. What are examples of special conditions?
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 5
A. State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)
Authority: The requirements for the State performance plan and annual performance report are found in the regulations at 34 CFR §§300.601 and 300.602(b)(2).
Question A-1: Are States required to report their determinations (meets requirements,
needs assistance, needs intervention, or needs substantial intervention) of each LEA’s performance in their APRs submitted to OSEP?
Answer: No. A State is not required to report in the State’s APR the determinations
the State made about each LEA.
Question A-2: What years are covered by the SPP submitted in December 2005? Answer: For the SPP submitted in December 2005, States must annually report on
performance for the academic years 2005-2006 through 2010-2011. The first APR, due February 1, 2007, was for the 2005-2006 year. Therefore, the six years began with the data for the 2005-2006 year. Under this schedule, the last APR under this SPP will be for the 2010-2011 academic year and will be due February 1, 2012.
Question A-3: OSEP published a guidance document, entitled Part B SPP/APR Related Requirements, which contains a detailed list of statutory and regulatory requirements related to each indicator. (See: http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/IDEA/bapr/2008/5relstedrequirements081308.pdf)
Are States required to monitor the requirements related to each indicator included in this document for every year that an LEA fails to meet a target in the SPP?
Answer: No. The “Related Requirements” guidance document, which OSEP distributes to Chief State School Officers, State Directors of Special Education, and State Data Managers, with the Part B SPP/APR materials, includes a list of the Part B monitoring priorities and indicators and the requirements from statutes (Part B of the IDEA and the General Education Provisions Act) and regulations that are related to each priority and indicator. The purpose of this document is to inform States of the statutory and regulatory requirements related to each indicator that will be reviewed by OSEP as part of Focused Monitoring. That is, if OSEP determines that it will do Focused Monitoring in a State because that State
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 6
is low performing or in noncompliance with a specific indicator, OSEP will review the related requirements for that indicator as part of the Focused Monitoring. OSEP encourages States to examine their general supervision systems to determine how they address the related requirements, but States are not required to do so.
Question A-4: If a State changes or updates its SPP, must the State resubmit the entire document or just those portions that have changed?
Answer: The decision to resubmit the entire SPP or just those portions that have
been changed or updated is left to the State.
Question A-5: Where should a State report on correction of noncompliance identified by
OSEP in its response to the State’s SPP/APR? Answer: States should report on the correction of any noncompliance identified by
OSEP in the same section of the APR for which noncompliance was originally identified in the prior year’s SPP/APR response table. For example, if, in its Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2006 APR, OSEP identified noncompliance for Indicator B-12, Early Childhood Transition, the State would report on correction of noncompliance related to early childhood transition in the APR section for Indicator B-12 in its FFY 2007 APR. In addition, the State should provide data in Indicator B-15 in its FFY 2007 APR on the status of timely correction of noncompliance identified in the FFY 2006 APR for Indicator B-15.
Question A-6: When the Department changes an indicator, or the measurement for an indicator, such as Indicator B-7 Preschool Early Childhood Outcomes, is it permissible for a State to change the baseline and targets for that indicator in its SPP?
Answer: Yes. It is permissible for a State to change baseline and targets for an SPP
indicator when the Department changes an indicator or measurement, unless the target is for a compliance indicator. Targets for compliance indicators are always 100 percent. Any State that considers revising a baseline or target should involve stakeholders in the process and include a justification for the change in the APR.
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 7
B. Public Reporting Authority: Section 300.602(b)(1) of the regulations requires each State to report
annually to the public on the performance of each LEA located in the State on meeting the targets in the SPP.
Question B-1: How does this reporting requirement relate to the requirement, contained in 34 CFR §300.601(b)(2), that any data collected through monitoring or sampling be collected at least once during the period of the SPP?
Answer: For those indicators for which the Secretary permits States to collect data
through monitoring or sampling, data must be collected for each LEA at least once during the period of the SPP. States are also required to report to the public annually on the performance of each LEA in meeting the targets in the SPP. In meeting this annual reporting requirement, if a State collects performance data through monitoring or sampling, the State must include the most recently available performance data on each LEA as required under 34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i) and the date these data were obtained.
Question B-2: When is a State required to report the status of each LEA regarding indicators in the SPP?
Answer: Following the submission of the APR to OSEP on February 1, 2007, each
State was required to report to the public on the status of each of its LEAs in meeting the 2005-2006 targets identified in the State’s SPP for the indicators that apply to LEAs. (Some indicators, such as the indicator regarding timely resolution of State complaints, deal with State functions.) Pursuant to 34 CFR §300.602(b)(1)(i)(A) of the Part B regulations published on December 1, 2008 and in effect on December 31, 2008, States must complete this reporting as soon as practicable and no later than 120 days following the State’s submission of its APR to the Department.
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 8
Question B-3: May States report intermediate unit (or regional) information rather than
LEA information for LEAs where the N size (total population of children with disabilities measured by the indicator in the LEA) is too small to report results for an LEA (e.g., the LEA’s one high school has two graduates with disabilities.)?
Answer: Yes. States may report information for intermediate units (or regions)
rather than for LEAs in situations where the N size is too small to report results without revealing personally identifiable information.
Question B-4: Must State reports on LEA performance on SPP targets include actual data (i.e., percent scores) or is it permissible for States to simply indicate whether or not the LEA met the State’s SPP targets?
Answer: The State’s report for each LEA must include actual LEA data (for
example, a specific percentage) that shows whether or not the LEA has met the State’s targets for each indicator that applies to LEAs.
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 9
C. Determinations and Enforcement
Authority: The requirements for determinations and enforcement are found in the regulations at 34 CFR §§300.600(a), 300.603 and 300.604.
Question C-1: When making determinations about an LEA’s performance, must States
use the same determination categories (i.e., meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention and needs substantial intervention) that OSEP uses with States?
Answer: Yes. Pursuant to section 616(a) of the IDEA, States must use the same four
determination categories that the Department is required to use, which are as follows: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, and needs substantial intervention as indicated in 34 CFR §300.603(b).
Question C-2: Is the implementation of the enforcement actions related to the determinations categories sequential? (That is, must a State be in two years of needs assistance before moving to three years of needs intervention?)
Answer: No. The enforcement actions are not sequential.
Question C-3: Must a State be in needs intervention for three years prior to OSEP
implementing enforcement actions (e.g., technical assistance, special conditions) or may OSEP impose enforcement earlier given a State’s especially poor performance?
Answer: No. OSEP may impose enforcement earlier given a State’s especially
poor performance. Under section 616(g) of the IDEA, the Department may use, at any time, any authority under the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) to monitor and enforce the requirements of the IDEA, regardless of the determinations made of the State’s status under section 616(d) of the IDEA.
Question C-4: Will OSEP provide an overall determination on each State’s performance, or will there be separate determinations for each indicator?
Answer: OSEP makes a single determination about the State’s performance in
implementing the requirements of Part B of the IDEA based on the State’s performance on all of the indicators, information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other public information.
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 10
Question C-5: What action, if any, will OSEP take when a State’s determination status
fluctuates between the categories of needs assistance and needs intervention, but never remains in either category for two or more consecutive years?
Answer: In such a situation, OSEP would be required to take the actions outlined in
34 CFR §300.604 based on the most recent determination category assigned by OSEP. For example, if in year 1, a State is in “needs assistance,” and in year 2 is in “needs intervention,” and in year 3, is in “needs assistance,” OSEP would not be required to take any of the enforcement actions listed in 34 CFR §300.604(a) under “needs assistance” because the State would not have been in “needs assistance” for two consecutive years. Moreover, OSEP would not be required to take any of the enforcement actions listed in 34 CFR §300.604(b) under “needs intervention” because the State would not have been in “needs intervention” for three or more consecutive years.
However, under section 616(g) of the Act, the Department may at any time
utilize any authority available to it under GEPA to monitor and enforce the requirements of the IDEA, regardless of the Department’s determination of the State’s status. The Department may use this authority to implement an enforcement action, as it determines appropriate.
Question C-6: If a State determines that an LEA cannot correct a monitoring finding within one year, may that State take the same action available to the Secretary under section 457 of the GEPA (i.e., enter into a compliance agreement between the State and the LEA)?
Answer: The authority to enter into a compliance agreement provided for under
section 457 of the GEPA applies only to agreements between the Department and States. The authority of a State to enter into a compliance agreement with an LEA is controlled by State law.
Question C-7: States and LEAs may be in or out of compliance on specific compliance indicators throughout the year. How will this process ensure that the determinations reflect the actual compliance status of LEAs within a State?
Answer: The Secretary’s determinations are based on the totality of the State’s data
in its APR and other publicly available information, including any compliance issues. The Department considers a variety of factors, including whether the State has provided valid and reliable data, and for compliance indicators, whether the State demonstrated compliance or
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 11
timely correction of noncompliance. In instances where the State did not demonstrate compliance, the Department considers whether the State had nonetheless made progress in ensuring compliance over prior performance in that area. The Department considers whether the State has prior IDEA compliance issues, the State’s progress in resolving those issues, and whether the State provided any additional information requested by the Department in the prior year’s response to the State’s APR. In addition, the Department considers whether the State has publicly reported on the performance of each LEA on the State’s SPP targets. Determinations are made annually; therefore the determination about the State’s status is reviewed each year. As part of the APR, each State submits data for the past fiscal year and may also choose to submit additional, more recent data if such data would provide a better representation of the State’s current status.
Question C-8: What are the opportunities for public input in the SPP/APR process? Answer: As noted in the conference report to HR 1350, it is Congress’ expectation
that SPPs, indicators and targets will be developed with broad stakeholder input. As part of States’ SPP and APR submissions, OSEP requires States to provide information in the overview section of the SPP, clarifying how the State obtained broad input from stakeholders on the SPP.
Question C-9: What factors must a State consider in making LEA determinations? Answer: When making an annual determination on the performance of each LEA
under Part B of the IDEA, consistent with sections 616(a) and (e) of the IDEA, a State must consider the following factors: (1) performance on compliance indicators; (2) valid and reliable data; (3) correction of identified noncompliance; and (4) other data available to the State about the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings. In addition, States may consider results on performance indicators and other information. States must utilize the four categories in section 616(d) of the IDEA. OSEP’s guidance to States regarding how to make LEA determinations can be found at the following Web site: http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/content/view/283/47/
Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance and Enforcement
PAGE 12
Question C-10: What sanctions may be imposed and what enforcement actions may be
taken by SEAs under Part B of the IDEA or the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)?
Answer: A State may impose sanctions and enforcement actions consistent with the
regulations in 34 CFR §§300.600(a) and 300.608. Specifically: (1) the State must enforce Part B of the IDEA in accordance with 34 CFR §§300.604(a)(1) and (a)(3), (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(v), and (c)(2); and (2) if a State determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B of the IDEA, including the targets in the SPP, the State must prohibit the LEA from reducing its maintenance of effort under 34 CFR §300.203 for any fiscal year; and (3) a State is not restricted from utilizing any other authority available to it to monitor and enforce the requirements of Part B of the IDEA.
Question C-11: Is a determination that the State makes about an LEA’s performance subject to appeal by the LEA?
Answer: Whether a State’s determination about an LEA’s performance may be
appealed is a State decision.
Question C-12: What are examples of special conditions? Answer: Special conditions are authorized in 34 CFR §80.12 of EDGAR and are
restrictions placed on a grant or subgrant. The regulations specify a number of examples of special conditions, such as payment on a reimbursement basis; requiring additional, more detailed reporting; requiring the grantee to obtain technical or management assistance; or requiring additional project monitoring.