as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pre-COVID-19 data from 2018 was determined to be an appropriate baseline. With a baseline of 78.38%, targets will gradually increase with consideration for COVID-19 impacts. Indicators 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12 During the APR Summit, stakeholders reviewed current data trends and ways to improve outcomes. Although targets cannot be changed, stakeholder input has been instrumental in meeting the targets for these Indicators. Input has been utilized to determine professional learning and support provided to bridge the gap between current performance and the targets. Indicator 13 The USBE recognizes this is an area requiring improvement. During the APR Summit, stakeholders reviewed current data trends and ways to improve outcomes. Although targets cannot be changed, stakeholder input has been instrumental in the progression toward meeting the target. Indicator 14 During the APR Summit, the USBE reviewed post-school outcomes data and recommendations of the USBE statistician. Participants analyzed trend data as well as the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Pre-COVID-19 data from 2018 was determined to be an appropriate baseline. The USBE predicts that outcomes for this Indicator are still being largely impacted by COVID-19, and targets are currently set below the baseline. With baselines of (A) 19.62%, (B) 67.60%, (C) 84.37%, targets will increase with consideration for COVID-19 impacts. Indicator 15 The USBE continues to experience relatively low levels of due process hearing requests and resolution meetings and is not required to set a target. Indicator 16 The USBE continues to experience relatively low levels of dispute resolution requests, including mediation. Targets have been set based on the low level of mediation requests.

########## FFY 2020 SPP/APR Data Has the state established a minimum n/cell-size requirement? (yes/no)

YES If yes, the State may only include, in both the numerator and the denominator, LEAs that met the State-established n/cell size. Report the number of LEAs excluded from the calculation as a result of the requirement. 18

Number of LEAs that have a significant discrepancy	Number of LEAs that met the State's minimum n/cell size	FFY 2019 Data	FFY 2020 Target	FFY 2020 Data	Status	Slippage
0	136	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	Met target	No Slippage

########## Choose one of the following comparison methodologies to determine whether significant discrepancies are occurring (34 CFR §300.170(a))

Compare the rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs among LEAs in the State

########## State's definition of 'significant discrepancy' and methodology

The USBE uses the "State-bar" method for defining significant discrepancy. The FFY 2019 (school year (SY) 2019 - 2020) State rate for suspending/expelling students with disabilities among LEAs in the State for more than ten days was 0.113%. The USBE set the "State-bar" as five percentage points higher than the State rate. Any LEA that suspended or expelled 5.113% or more of its students with disabilities for more than ten days was flagged for significant discrepancy. There must be an "n" size of at least 30 students with disabilities in the LEA in the denominator of a suspension rate for the LEA to be flagged. Of the 154 LEAs in SY 2019- 2020, 136 met the minimum 'n' size of 30. Of the 18 that did not meet the minimum 'n' size, all but one had a 0% suspension rate. Across the entire state, 91 students with disabilities were suspended for more than 10 days in SY 2019-2020.

########## Provide additional information about this indicator (optional)

During the APR Summit, a review of baselines for Indicator 4 was conducted to determine if baselines should remain or be updated to correlate with changing targets. Consideration was given for the impacts of COVID-19 and State needs for consistency. Stakeholders reviewed historical data and projections for where the State would be in 2025 - 2026 if all things stayed the same. Choosing a baseline from a year prior to COVID-19 reflects Utah in a typical school year and was determined to be appropriate. COVID-19 does not appear to have had an impact on LEA rates of suspensions and expulsions exceeding 10 days as measured by Indicator 4A.

########## Review of Policies, Procedures, and Practices (completed in FFY 2020 using 2019-2020 data)

Provide a description of the review of policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. No LEAs were flagged for significant discrepancy. Review of policies, procedures, and practices was not required in FFY 2019 related to Indicator 4A.

The State DID NOT identify noncompliance with Part B requirements as a result of the review required by 34 CFR §300.170(b)

########## Correction of Findings of Noncompliance Identified in FFY 2019