## Introduction

######## Instructions

Provide sufficient detail to ensure that the Secretary and the public are informed of and understand the State's systems desi gned to drive improved results for students with disabilities and to ensure that the State Educational Agency (SEA) and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) meet the requirements of IDEA Part B. This introduction must include descriptions of the State's General Supervision System, Technical Assistance System, Professional Development System, Stakeholder Involvement, and Reporting to the Public.

### Intro - Indicator Data

########## Executive Summary

In FFY 2020, Utah met 42 of 51 targets of the applicable Part B State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Indicators. These included Indicators measuring graduation, drop out, assessments, suspension/expulsion, educational environments, preschool outcomes, parent involvement, disproportionate representation, post-school outcomes, resolution, and mediation sessions (In FFY 2019, Utah met or was in significant compliance with 11 of 26 targets). Indicator data has been reviewed extensively as the Utah State Board of Education Special Education Services (USBE SES) section has updated baselines and targets to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. The COVID-19 pandemic continued to impact Utah schools. During the 2020-2021 school year, local education agencies (LEAs) determined how they would provide education. In-person learning, virtual learning, or a combination of virtual and in-person learning were provided in each LEA. Some LEAs gave options of in-person or virtual learning, while others provided one method only. Utah values the findings of this SPP/APR and continues to align efforts and budgets to address those areas most impactful to student outcomes.

########## Additional information related to data collection and reporting

########## Number of Districts in your State/Territory during reporting year

156

########## General Supervision System: The systems that are in place to ensure that IDEA Part B requirements are met, e.g., monitoring, dispute resolution, etc.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) and the USBE Special Education Rules (Rules) state USBE SES staff have the responsibility of monitoring compliance with federal and state requirements (20 U.S.C. § 1400; Rules VIII.C-D). The primary focus is improving educational results and functional outcomes for all students with disabilities (Rules VIII.C.3.). The USBE SES uses the Utah Program Improvement Planning System (UPIPS) to monitor and support compliance with requirements in LEAs across Utah. This system aligns with the system used by the federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to monitor each state. UPIPS encompasses both external monitoring by the USBE SES and internal monitoring by the LEA. The purpose of UPIPS is to use monitoring to improve procedural compliance and outcomes for students with disabilities. This data-driven approach to monitoring provides a systematic way for the USBE SES and the LEA to evaluate the impact special education services have on student achievement and outcomes. UPIPS monitoring also helps generate data the USBE SES is required to report to OSEP regarding the Indicators on the SPP/APR. The USBE SES compiles the data for each Indicator for the entire state to determine whether targets were met. Data used for the SPP/APR Indicators are also used by the USBE SES for the Results Driven Accountability (RDA) process. The USBE SES annually sends a letter to each LEA reporting the LEA performance on each APR Indicator in relation to the state targets along with additional data points. The USBE SES determines a level of risk for each LEA as well as a Program Implementation Monitoring Tier. The USBE SES provides tiered supports and activities for improvement and risk mitigation based on the LEA level of identified risk. LEAs must develop an annual program improvement plan (PIP) to use as a tool in reducing their individual high-risk Indicators and improve outcomes for students with disabilities. The overall system is based on the following principles or themes: •Continuity: Monitoring is continuous rather than episodic, is linked to systemic change, and is integrated with sel f-assessment, continuous feedback, and response. •Partnership with Stakeholders: The USBE SES and LEAs collaborate with diverse stakeholders in collection and analysis of sel f-assessment data; identification of critical issues and solutions to problems; and development, implementation, and oversight of improvement strategies to ensure compliance and improved results for students with disabilities. •LEA Accountability: LEAs are accountable for identifying strengths and areas of concern based upon data anal ysis; identifying, implementing, and revising strategies for program improvement; and submitting annual measurement and progress reports through PIPs. •Data -Driven Self-Assessment Process: LEAs work with stakeholders to design and implement a self-assessment process to review and improve outcomes for students with disabilities using data that align with the USBE and the LEA performance goals, and the APR Indicators. Data that are available and can be critical to the self-assessment process may include, the Utah State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP), APR Indicators, personnel needs, and other LEA improvement efforts and initiatives. •Technical Assistance: The UPIPS process is continuous. Technical assistance is a critical component of program improvement. The USBE SES provides technical assistance and professional learning. LEAs are encouraged to evaluate and include technical assistance as part of their PIPs. Identification and Correction of Noncompliance The USBE reviews data collected from LEAs to ensure compliance with the regulatory requirements of the IDEA and USBE Rules. Data collected on the date of full monitoring visits and Indicator-specific file reviews are reported in the SPP/APR as the level of compliance. As outlined by OSEP, the LEA is not provided an opportunity to correct noncompliance prior to reporting. Correction of Noncompliance OSEP requires that all noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case later than one year from the date of identification of noncompliance. The USBE created a method that will require the least amount of time and effort for LEAs while providing the USBE with evidence verifying corrections. Before the USBE can conclude and report that noncompliance has been corrected, it must first verify, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02, that the LEA: