1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 1 of 44

General Comments

Comment: None.

Discussion: As a part of our review of documents in response to 

comments, we determined that the instructions required revisions 

to remove references to hard copy forms and hard copy 

submissions. Beginning with the FFY 2013 State Performance 

Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) due in February 2015, 

States will submit using the online GRADS 360 system; therefore,

there are no paper forms and States do not have the option of

submitting a hard copy of the SPP/APR for the six-year cycle 

that will cover FFYs 2013 through FFY 2018.

Changes: We have removed the reference to the SPP/APR template 

in the SPP/APR materials section. We have removed the option 

for a State to submit a hard copy of the SPP/APR through the 

mail.

Comment: None.

Discussion: As a part of our review of documents in response to 

comments, we determined that we had not removed all references 

to the previously-required Improvement Activities. We have 

revised the measurement table and instructions.

Changes: References to “improvement activities” in the 

measurement table have been removed from Indicator 8 and the 

Paperwork Burden Statement at the end of the measurement table 

and at the end of the instructions document. 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 2 of 44

Comment: A few commenters asked if the State educational agency 

(SEA) must re-establish baseline for Indicators 1-16 and set new 

targets.

Discussion: There is no requirement that SEAs re-establish 

baseline data for FFY 2013 for each of the results indicators

for its FFY 2013 SPP/APR submission, due in February 2015, but 

the State must make clear for each results indicator the FFY 

data that it had previously identified as its baseline data for 

that indicator. With the exception of Indicators 2 and 17, the 

data source and measurement for each IDEA Part B results 

indicator is consistent with the previously approved SPP/APR. 

States will also need to establish measureable and rigorous 

targets for each results indicator, and for each reporting year 

through the end of the six-year cycle (for FFY 2013, due in 

February 2015 through FFY 2018, due in February 2020), and must 

describe how it included the participation of stakeholders, such 

as parent of children with disabilities, local educational 

agencies (LEAs), the State Advisory Panel and others, when 

establishing those targets. Targets for these results 

indicators (Indicators 1, 2, 3, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 16)

may remain flat over a period of reporting years, but the 

State’s FFY 2018 target for each results indicator must 

demonstrate improvement over the State’s established baseline
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 3 of 44

data for that indicator, which in most cases will have been 

established in the previous SPP that covered FFYs 2005-2012. 

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter asked if an SEA must submit a new 

sampling plan for indicators under which a sampling plan was 

previously approved by the Department.

Discussion: The Department must ensure that each State using a 

sampling methodology to collect data for an indicator has a 

sampling plan that yields valid and reliable representative 

data. If a State will use its currently-approved sampling plan 

and only change the years for which it is used, the State can 

provide an assurance to this effect. If a State proposes to use 

a sampling plan that was not previously used and approved or 

will revise its current sampling plan, the State will need to 

submit the sampling plan for approval. 

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on when a State 

must report on slippage.

Discussion: As stated in the SPP/APR instructions, a State must 

only report on slippage for those indicators where the data do 

not demonstrate progress from the previous year’s data and where 

the State did not meet its target. There is currently no 

requirement for a State to report on slippage for those 

indicators where the data do not demonstrate progress from the 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 4 of 44

previous year’s data, but the State has met its target, although 

a State may choose to do so. Additionally, there is currently 

no requirement to report on progress, although a State may 

choose to do so.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters requested that the Office of 

Special Education Programs (OSEP) provide more detail on how it 

calculated the burden hours associated with this collection. 

Discussion: We believe that the explanation on how the 

Department calculated the burden hours associated with this 

collection is adequately explained in the response to Item 12 of 

the Supporting Statement. 

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter requested that the SEA be given the 

flexibility to publically report school level data instead of 

LEA level data, when determined more appropriate by the SEA.

Discussion: IDEA section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(I) requires the State 

to annually report to the public on the performance of each LEA 

located in the State on the targets in the State’s SPP. 

Therefore, the State must annually report at the LEA level. 

However, the State may additionally choose to report at the 

school level, when it determines that those data would also be 

valuable to the public. Under IDEA section 616(b)(2)(C)(iii), 

the State must ensure that it does not report any information on 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 5 of 44

performance data that would result in the disclosure of 

personally identifiable information about individual children or 

when the available data is insufficient to yield statistically 

reliable information.

Changes: None.

Indicators 1 and 2: Graduation and Dropout

Comment: One commenter requested that Indicator 1 be eliminated 

because the data are already reported under the Consolidated 

State Performance Report (CSPR) submitted annually to the 

Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

(OESE).

Discussion: Section 612(a)(15)(A)(iii) of IDEA requires that 

the State has established goals for the performance of children 

with disabilities in the State that address graduation rates. 

Therefore, we decline to delete Indicator 1 as the commenter 

requested even though similar data are submitted to the 

Department through the CSPR. Additionally, States are required 

under Indicator 1 to further analyze the data submitted through 

the CSPR.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several SEAs, a membership organization, and an 

individual expressed concern with Indicator 1. All commenters 

noted that many students with disabilities do not graduate from 

high school in four years, as they are entitled to special 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 6 of 44

education and related services until they graduate with a 

regular high school diploma or reach the age at which 

eligibility ceases under the age requirements within the State, 

whichever comes first. Therefore, the data reported in the CSPR 

may not accurately reflect outcomes for students with 

disabilities. Some commenters requested that States be given 

flexibility to determine the targets for Indicator 1 instead of 

using the targets reported in the CSPR. Additionally, the 

commenters believe that targets should be set with stakeholder 

involvement and should account for “student-centered decision 

making.”

Discussion: Indicator 1 was previously revised at the urging of 

stakeholders. There was concern that States were reporting one 

graduation percentage in the CSPR and another in the SPP/APR. 

The “double reporting” was perceived as being burdensome and 

confusing to the public. Targets are established through a 

State’s accountability workbook and are approved by OESE. We 

believe that it is important for the SPP/APR requirements to 

align with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)

requirements. However, a State has the flexibility to report 

additional information in the APR on those students with 

disabilities who do not graduate with their cohort because they 

continue to receive special education and related services until 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 7 of 44

they reach the age at which eligibility ceases under the age 

requirements within the State.

Changes: None.

Indicator 2: Dropout

Comment: Many commenters requested that States be given 

flexibility when reporting on dropout percentages for Indicator 

2. They state that the indicator, as written, is not a true 

dropout rate and unfairly inflates the dropout statistic for 

students with disabilities.

Discussion: The SPP/APR must continue to collect dropout data 

as it is required by IDEA section 612(a)(15)(A)(iii). We agree 

with the commenters that States should be given flexibility when 

reporting on dropout percentages for Indicator 2. Previously, 

States were required to submit the same data that was reported 

in a State’s CSPR. While dropout data are no longer collected 

in the CSPR, States can still calculate a dropout rate based on 

the dropout data previously collected through the CSPR (i.e., 

calculated using the annual event school dropout rate for 

students leaving a school in a single year determined in 

accordance with the National Center for Education Statistic's 

Common Core of Data). Beginning with the FFY 2011 APR, the 

Department changed the data source for Indicator 2 from data 

used for reporting to the Department under Title I to data used 

for reporting to the Department under section 618. However, in 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 8 of 44

response to concerns raised by States regarding the use of these 

two calculation methodologies, OSEP gave States the option to 

report Indicator 2 data for their FFY 2011 and FFY 2012 APRs by 

using the data source and measurement as written (based on 

section 618 data) or by using the data source and measurement 

that the State used for its FFY 2010 APR that was submitted on 

February 1, 2012 (based on Title I data). (See OSEP Memorandum 

13-6 on Submission of the FFY 2011 APR, which was due on

February 15, 2013 and OSEP Memorandum 14-2 on Submission of the 

FFY 2012 APR, which was due on February 3, 2013.)

We agree that the indicator as written, which is based only on

the data used for reporting to the Department under section 618,

is not a true dropout rate for students with disabilities

because it is based on the number of students with disabilities, 

ages 14 through 21, who left high school in the reporting year 

instead of the number of students with disabilities who were 

enrolled in school for the reporting year, as previously 

reported in the CSPR. We also recognize that the indicator as 

written would elicit percentages that are significantly 

different than the dropout rates previously reported in the 

CSPR. However, the calculation based on section 618 data has 

been used by OSEP in its annual report to Congress for more than 

ten years and has been publically reported. Therefore, trend 

data exists and States could set meaningful targets. 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 9 of 44

In order to continue to provide flexibility to States when 

reporting under Indicator 2, we have revised Indicator 2 of the 

Part B Measurement Table to allow each State to choose between 

two calculation methodologies. A State may either report the 

percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who 

exited special education due to dropping out in the numerator 

and the number of all youth with IEPs who left high school (ages 

14-21) in the denominator, i.e., OPTION 1, or a State may choose 

to report using the same data source and measurement that the 

State used for its FFY 2010 APR that was submitted on February 

1, 2012, i.e., OPTION 2. 

Changes: The measurement table has been revised to allow for 

flexibility in reporting data for Indicator 2.

Indicator 3: Assessment

Comment: One commenter requested that Indicator 3 be eliminated 

because the data are reported in a State’s CSPR. Another 

commenter requested that the indicator be eliminated because the 

information is no longer required under ESEA flexibility.

Discussion: We will not remove Indicator 3 as the commenters

requested. This indicator requires reporting data for both 

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (Indicator 3A) as well as the 

assessment data reported for the CSPR (Indicator 3B and 3C). 

Determining AYP, the focus of Indicator 3A, remains a current 

requirement under ESEA. However, in September 2011, the 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 10 of 44

Secretary invited each interested SEA to request flexibility 

from certain ESEA requirements pursuant to the authority granted 

to the Secretary in the ESEA that allows the Secretary to waive, 

with certain exceptions, any statutory or regulatory requirement 

of the ESEA for an SEA that receives funds under a program 

authorized by the ESEA and requests a waiver. Under this 

flexibility, SEAs could apply for a waiver of the requirements 

to determine AYP for LEAs. Currently, many States have been 

granted such a waiver. Therefore, Indicator 3A provides more 

details regarding the data source, measurement, and instructions 

for: 1) States that either did not apply for or did not receive 

ESEA flexibility, or applied for and received flexibility but 

did not apply for a waiver of determining AYP; and 2) States 

with an approved ESEA flexibility request that includes a waiver 

of determining AYP. Regarding Indicators 3B and 3C, though 

assessment data used in Indicators 3B and 3C are reported in the 

CSPR, the analysis and comparison of these data to statedetermined targets for the subgroup of children with 

disabilities is not required in other Federal reporting 

requirements.

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters requested that we revise Indicator 3A 

to better align with a State’s individual ESEA flexibility 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 11 of 44

request. As an example, one SEA requested that it be allowed to 

provide data on its growth model.

Discussion: The measurement for Indicator 3A reflects the 

percentage of districts with a disability subgroup that meets 

the States minimum “n” size that meet either the State’s AYP or 

Annual Measurable Objectives (AMO) targets for the disability 

subgroup. The data are the same data that the State uses for 

AYP or AMO reporting under ESEA. Therefore, a State could use 

data from its growth model as its data source if those data are 

the data used for AYP or AMO reporting under ESEA. 

Changes: None. 

Indicator 4: Suspension and Expulsion

Comment: Two commenters expressed concern that Indicator 4A 

might be eliminated.

Discussion: Indicator 4A will not be eliminated.

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter requested clarification on why Indicator 

4A is considered a “results” indicator and Indicator 4B is 

considered a “compliance” indicator and is used in making annual 

determinations.

Discussion: The measurement for Indicator 4B is the “Percent of 

districts that have: (a) a significant discrepancy, by race or 

ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater 

than 10 days in a school year for children with IEPs; and (b) 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 12 of 44

policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the 

significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements 

relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use 

of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and 

procedural safeguards.” Indicator 4B is a compliance indicator 

because it requires a State to report not only the number of 

districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race or 

ethnicity, in its disciplinary rate for children with 

disabilities, but also the number of districts that have 

policies, procedures, or practices that contribute to the 

significant discrepancy and do not comply with specified IDEA 

Part B requirements. Indicator 4A, however, is a results 

indicator that measures only the “Percent of districts that have 

a significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and 

expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children 

with IEPs,” regardless of whether a district has policies, 

procedures, or practices that do not comply with IDEA Part B 

requirements. 

Changes: None.

Comment: One commenter recommended that OSEP consider Indicator 

4A when making annual determinations.

Discussion: OSEP determines on an annual basis how it will make 

determinations and will soon seek public input on using results 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 13 of 44

indicators in making determinations. We will consider the 

commenter’s suggestion as a part of that process.

Changes: None.

Indicators 5 and 6: Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) and 

Preschool LRE

Comment: A few commenters requested that the indicators be 

removed because the data are already submitted through EDFacts. 

Several commenters representing private special education 

schools expressed concern that reporting on educational 

placements adversely impacts a student’s right to be educated in 

a non-public setting because States feel pressure to meet the 

targets established for Indicators 5 and 6. 

Discussion: IDEA section 616(a)(3)(A) specifically requires 

that the Department monitor SEAs, and SEAs monitor LEAs, using 

quantifiable indicators, and qualitative indicators as 

necessary, in the priority area of the provision of a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE) in the LRE. Subsequent to 

the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, the Department, with broad 

stakeholder input, developed Indicator 5: School Age FAPE in the 

LRE and Indicator 6: Preschool LRE to meet this requirement. We 

will not remove or revise these indicators. Indicators 5 and 6 

reporting considerations should never drive placement decisions. 

Pursuant to the Part B regulations in 34 CFR §§300.320 through 

300.324, a child’s IEP team develops an IEP for that child to 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 14 of 44

ensure that the child is provided FAPE in the LRE. 

Subsequently, pursuant to 34 CFR §§ 300.116 and 300.327, a 

group, which must include the parents of the child, determines 

the educational placement of the child. Educational placement 

decisions, pursuant to 34 CFR §300.116, must be based on a 

child’s IEP and be in conformity with the LRE provisions in 

Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations. Therefore, 

placement decisions must always be based on the unique needs of 

the child to ensure the provision of FAPE in the LRE.

Changes: None.

Comment: A few commenters requested guidance on how a State 

should account for five-year-olds who attend kindergarten and 

not preschool. Those commenters also requested that OSEP revise 

the Indicator 6 language because it is confusing. As an 

example, the commenters state that the indicator should read 

“regular early childhood ‘classroom’” instead of “program.” 

They also requested that the indicator define or provide 

examples of inclusive or regular early childhood classrooms. 

Finally, they state that the indicator should capture that 

preschool LRE is about access to typically developing peers and 

standards aligned preschool activities.

Discussion: The EDFacts Submission System technical guide for 

C089 – Children with Disabilities (IDEA) Early Childhood File 

Specifications (technical guide) provides the answers that are 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 15 of 44

responsive to the comments. The technical guide states that 

five-year-olds who attend kindergarten are counted as attending 

a regular early childhood program. We decline to change 

“program” to “classroom” because the indicator language is 

consistent with the data collection file specifications. The 

technical guide also provides a list of settings that would be 

considered regular early childhood programs. We agree that 

preschoolers with disabilities should be educated with their 

typically developing peers to the extent that it is consistent 

with the preschooler’s IEP, and that these children should have 

access to the general curriculum. However, we do not believe 

that Indicator 6 is the appropriate place to collect that 

information because the indicator captures quantitative 

information on the settings in which preschoolers with 

disabilities are educated.

Changes: None.

Indicator 7: Preschool Outcomes

Comment: One commenter requested that this indicator be removed 

because “the challenges presented by the data collection make 

reporting burdensome, costly, and the data results 

questionable.” Another commenter expressed concern that the 

indicator, as written, is too confusing and should be “condensed 

or simplified.”
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 16 of 44

Discussion: Based on significant input from States, the 

indicator measurement was previously streamlined to reduce 

burden and confusion. Those revisions reduced the data points 

from 15 to two summary statements. Further, we do not agree 

that the “data results are questionable.” Each State has the 

flexibility to determine the data source and data collection 

method it will use to yield valid and reliable data for 

reporting. Additionally, ongoing analysis shows many States are 

submitting high quality data and the data from other States 

continues to improve. Therefore, we will not eliminate the 

indicator as the commenter requested.

Changes: None. 

Indicator 8: Parent Involvement

Comment: All commenters agreed that parent input is important

and that parent participation is a critical component in 

improving results for students with disabilities. While one 

commenter believes that the data are an important improvement 

tool in the State, many other commenters questioned the utility 

of the data collected under Indicator 8. Some commenters 

wondered about representativeness and reliability. Another 

stated that the data collected for the indicator have not been 

linked to increased parent involvement in his or her State. A 

few commenters stated that they do not believe that a survey is 

the best method for collecting Indicator 8 data. Other 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 17 of 44

commenters suggested that Indicator 8 collect information on a 

State’s individual strategy for gathering parent input and that 

this plan be spelled out in the indicator and that the parent 

feedback is reported and addressed. One commenter suggested 

that OSEP encourage States to collect these data electronically. 

One commenter requested that the indicator be eliminated because 

it is not required by statute or regulation.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters that parent input and 

participation are critical to improved outcomes for students 

with disabilities and do not agree that this indicator should be 

eliminated. The Act and the Part B regulations encourage parent 

input and involvement in all aspects of a child’s educational 

program, including those areas set forth in section 616(a)(3) of 

the Act as priority areas. In addition, the Secretary 

recognizes the vital role parents play in the education of their 

child. Therefore, we feel that it is critical to include an 

indicator measuring the percent of parents with a child 

receiving special education services who report that the school 

facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services 

and results for children with disabilities. As we have 

previously clarified, there is no requirement that a State use a 

survey to collect data for this indicator; rather the indicator 

allows a State to select the data source that it will use to 

report valid and reliable data for Indicator 8. The 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 18 of 44

instructions provide guidance for those States that choose to 

use a survey to collect its data for this indicator, but in no 

way mandate a survey’s use. However, we recognize that the 

instructions, as written, may be confusing. We will add 

language to the instructions that a State is not required to use 

a survey to collect data for this indicator. 

We appreciate the commenters’ suggestions for improving this 

indicator and believe that the indicator, as written, is 

structured in such a way to provide a State with the flexibility 

to report on its individual strategy for gathering and reporting

parent input. Although it is not required, we agree with the 

commenters that it would be beneficial for a State to provide 

information on how it will address parent feedback. We also 

support the idea of collecting Indicator 8 data electronically 

if that is the State-selected data collection method.

Changes: We have revised the instructions for Indicator 8 to 

read “While a survey is not required for this indicator, a State 

using a survey must submit a copy of any new or revised survey 

with its APR.” 

Indicators 9 and 10: Disproportionality

Comment: Many commenters suggested that Indicators 9 and 10 are 

duplicative and requested that OSEP combine the two indicators. 

Another commenter requested that the indicators be eliminated 

because they are not required by statute.
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 19 of 44

Discussion: IDEA section 616(a)(3)(C) specifically requires the 

Secretary to monitor the States, and SEAs to monitor LEAs, using 

a quantifiable or a qualitative indicator, as necessary, to 

adequately measure disproportionate representation of racial 

and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to 

the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate 

identification. Therefore, we decline to eliminate Indicators 9 

and 10 as the commenter suggested.

In a previous Information Collection request, OSEP proposed to 

combine Indicators 9 and 10 to eliminate duplication and reduce 

reporting burden. In response, we received overwhelming comment 

that combining the indicators would actually increase burden 

because States would have to retool their information collection 

systems to reformat these data. It was also noted by a few 

commenters that combining the indicators may unintentionally 

eliminate data from being included in determining the extent to 

which an SEA is meeting IDEA requirements. Further, Indicators

9 and 10 are not exactly the same. Indicator 9 collects data on 

the percent of districts with disproportionate representation of 

racial and ethnic groups in special education and related 

services that is the result of inappropriate identification. 

Indicator 10 disaggregates that information by disability 

category. In response, Indicators 9 and 10 were maintained as 

separate indicators. We will continue to maintain both 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 20 of 44

Indicators 9 and 10 because no commenter provided a reason that 

outweighs the previous concerns.

Changes: None.

Comment: Two commenters requested that the term “mental 

retardation” be removed from the data source for Indicator 10 

because Public Law 111-256 (Rosa’s Law) replaces the term in 

IDEA and other Federal laws with the term “intellectual 

disability.”

Discussion: The data used to calculate the measurement for 

Indicator 10 are collected through EDFacts File C002. That file 

has replaced the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual 

disability.” However, the Indicator Measurement Table 

Instructions for Indicator/Measurement column for Indicator 10 

still included the outdated term. We have replaced it with the 

term “intellectual disability.” We encourage States to replace 

the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability” if 

the term is used in the preparation of the SPP/APR.

Changes: We have replaced the term “mental retardation” with 

the term “intellectual disability” in the Indicator Measurement 

Table Instructions for Indicator/Measurement column for 

Indicator 10.

Comment: A few commenters requested that OSEP define 

“disproportionate representation.”
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 21 of 44

Discussion: We maintain that it would not be appropriate to 

specifically define the term “disproportionate representation” 

as used in Indicators 9 and 10 given that there are multiple 

factors at the State level to consider when establishing this 

definition. However, we recognize that some State-established 

definitions may be written in such a way that makes it likely 

that no LEAs will be identified with disproportionate 

representation. We encourage every State, particularly those in 

which the State, using its current State-established definition, 

has not identified any districts with disproportionate 

representation, to review its definition and, with stakeholder 

involvement, make any necessary revisions. OSEP will continue 

to review State definitions to ensure the definitions will yield 

valid results.

Changes: None.

Indicator 12: Early Childhood Transition

Comment: One commenter remarked that element “e” in Indicator 

12 (the number of children determined to be eligible for early 

intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before 

their third birthdays) is burdensome data to collect. The 

commenter recognizes that the collection often requires 

collaboration between the SEA and the Part C lead agency, but 

stresses that the reality of gathering data from another agency 

is problematic.
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 22 of 44

Discussion: We appreciate the commenter acknowledging that 

collaboration between Part B and Part C is critical to ensuring 

effective early childhood transition. We encourage the SEA and 

the Part C lead agency to continue to build systems to address 

the timely and accurate transfer of data. Element “e” allows a 

State to exclude from its calculation those children who were 

determined to be eligible for early intervention services under 

Part C less than 90 days before their third birthday, thereby 

decreasing the denominator and increasing the compliance 

percentage. Therefore, it is to the State’s advantage to 

exclude from the calculation children who were determined to be 

eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 

90 days before their third birthday.

Changes: None.

Indicator 13: Secondary Transition

Comment: A few commenters questioned the cost/benefit of 

Indicator 13. One stated that the indicator is complex with 

many elements and requires 100% compliance, which is often not 

possible. The commenter suggested an alternative means of 

calculating the data for this indicator. Another commenter 

stated that monitoring this indicator takes a large amount of 

staff time and that the paperwork associated with documenting 

the transition requirements does not necessarily lead to 

improved outcomes for students with disabilities.
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 23 of 44

Discussion: IDEA section 616(a)(3)(B) specifically identifies a 

system of transition services as defined in section 602(34) 

(definition of “transition services”) as one of the priority 

areas the Department must measure using quantifiable indicators, 

and qualitative indicators as necessary. Indicator 13 was 

reworded at commenter request during a previous approval cycle 

for 1820-0624 to ensure accurate and complete reporting that is 

aligned with statutory and regulatory requirements. The IDEA 

Part B regulations in 34 CFR §300.320(b) require, beginning not 

later than the first IEP to be in effect when the child turns 

16, or younger if determined appropriate by the IEP Team, and 

updated annually, thereafter, that the IEP include: (1) 

appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age 

appropriate transition assessments related to training, 

education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent 

living skills; and (2) the transition services (including 

courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those 

goals. The public agency must invite a child with a disability 

to attend the child’s IEP team meeting where transition services 

are to be discussed, and if appropriate, a representative of any 

participating agency that is likely to be responsible for 

providing or paying for transition services, with the prior 

consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of 

majority, as required by 34 CFR §300.321(b). We continue to 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 24 of 44

believe that Indicator 13, as currently worded, is aligned with 

the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and States 

collect valid and reliable data consistent with the required 

measurement for this indicator. Further, we believe that 

comprehensive and meaningful planning is a key component of a 

student with a disability’s successful transition to college or 

career; and that the benefits to a student with a disability of 

ensuring transition planning that is aligned with the statutory 

and regulatory requirements outweigh any associated burden.

Changes: None.

Indicator 14: Post School Outcomes

Comment: One SEA supports the inclusion of Indicator 14 and 

states that “without measures of post-school engagement, there 

is little to substantiate the long-term success of the other 

indicators.” However, a few other commenters recommended that 

the indicator be eliminated because of the cost associated with 

the collection and because, as one of the commenters asserts, 

the collection yields little data of value.

Discussion: We agree with the commenter that data on post 

school outcomes is a key measure of the efficacy of the IDEA. 

One purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with 

disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes 

special education and related services designed to meet their 

unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment,
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 25 of 44

and independent living. Indicator 14 measures the percent of 

students with disabilities who are no longer in secondary 

school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and 

were: (A) enrolled in higher education within one year of 

leaving high school; (B) enrolled in higher education or 

competitively employed within one year of leaving high school; 

or (C) enrolled in higher education or in some other 

postsecondary education or training program, or competitively 

employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving 

high school. In short, Indicator 14 is one measure of the 

result of the FAPE provided to a student with a disability. 

States have been given the flexibility to determine how to best 

collect those data in order to yield valid and reliable data 

that are useful.

Changes: None.

Current Indicator 15: Timely Correction

Comment: Several commenters did not agree with the elimination 

of current Indicator 15: Timely Correction. They believe that 

school districts need a specific reason to focus on the timely 

identification and correction of noncompliance. Other 

commenters strongly supported eliminating current Indicator 15 

because it is viewed as duplicative and overly burdensome.

Discussion: IDEA section 616(a)(1) requires the Secretary to 

monitor implementation of the IDEA through oversight of the 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 26 of 44

exercise of general supervision by the States, and, in turn, for

States to monitor implementation of IDEA by LEAs. In order to 

effectively monitor implementation of IDEA, States must ensure 

that identified noncompliance is corrected in a timely manner, 

as required by IDEA sections 612(a)(11) and 616(a), 34 CFR 

§§300.149 and 300.600, and section 441(b)(3) of the General 

Education Provisions Act. Therefore, regardless of the fact 

that Indicator 15 is being eliminated, States and school 

districts must continue to focus on timely identification and 

correction of noncompliance. 

The SPP/APR is one of the methods that the Department uses to 

monitor States, and States use to monitor LEAs, to ensure timely 

identification and correction of noncompliance. IDEA section 

616(a)(3)(B) specifically requires that the Department monitor 

SEAs, and SEAs monitor LEAs, using quantifiable indicators, and 

qualitative indicators as necessary, in specified priority 

areas, including the area of State exercise of general 

supervision. As stated in the explanation and rationale 

document that accompanied this proposed Information Collection, 

there will continue to be a focus on the timely identification 

and correction of noncompliance. The Department is eliminating 

Indicator 15 to reduce reporting burden. However, States will 

continue to be required to report on the timely correction of 

noncompliance under the individual compliance indicators in the 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 27 of 44

SPP/APR. The instructions for these indicators require States to 

provide detailed information about the timely correction of 

noncompliance reported for these indicators in the previous 

year’s APR. We will also monitor States’ compliance with the 

requirement to ensure timely identification and correction of 

noncompliance. Under Results Driven Accountability, we will 

implement a differentiated monitoring system through which we 

will monitor all States, and provide individualized support to a 

State that needs it. The data from the compliance indicators 

and other monitoring efforts provide a reasonable quantifiable 

basis for OSEP to reach a determination as to whether a State 

has a monitoring system that is effective in correcting 

identified noncompliance within one year of identification. 

OSEP will continue to consider timely correction in its annual 

determinations process.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters requested guidance on how the 

timely correction requirements would be best implemented within 

each of the compliance indicators.

Discussion: Current Indicator 15 has been eliminated, but the 

requirement to correct noncompliance at both the child-specific 

and systemic levels remains the same. When reporting on 

correction of noncompliance under the individual compliance 

indicators, States must continue to report on timely correction 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 28 of 44

of noncompliance at both the child-specific and systemic levels. 

OSEP’s September 2008 FAQs and the October 17, 2008 Dear 

Colleague Memorandum continue to provide States with guidance on 

how States should verify, and report on, the timely correction 

of findings of State-identified noncompliance in their APRs. 

Child-specific correction requires the LEA to correct, and the 

SEA to verify correction of, each individual case of identified 

noncompliance. Systemic correction requires the LEA correctly 

implement the regulatory requirements and the SEA to verify that 

correction by reviewing updated data. 

Changes: None.

New Indicators 15 and 16: Resolution Sessions and Mediations

Comment: Several comments requested that these indicators be 

eliminated because the data are already submitted through 

another OMB-approved information collection. They state that 

State complaint timelines (previous Indicator 16), due process 

hearing timelines (previous Indicator 17), and timely and 

accurate data (previous Indicator 20) were all eliminated 

because the data were collected through another OMB-approved 

information collection and would like OSEP to apply that 

rationale to proposed Indicators 15 and 16. 

Discussion: IDEA section 616(a)(3)(B) requires the Secretary to 

monitor the States, and States to monitor the LEAs, using 

quantifiable indicators in a number of priority areas, and 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 29 of 44

specifically references the use of resolution sessions and 

mediations. Therefore, we decline to remove these indicators 

even though the data are initially submitted through another 

OMB-approved information collection.

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters recommended that Indicators 15 and 

16 measure the timeliness of resolution sessions and mediations, 

as SEAs have no control over resolution through resolution 

sessions or mediations. Another commenter requested that there 

be no targets for Indicators 15 and 16 because of the SEAs lack 

of control over the outcomes of resolution sessions and 

mediations.

Discussion: As previously stated, IDEA section 616(a)(3)(B)

requires that the resolution sessions and mediations be measured 

using quantifiable indicators, and qualitative indicators as 

necessary and expressly specifies that the indicators in these 

two priority areas must measure the use of these dispute 

resolution methods. Therefore, while we agree that SEAs might 

have more control over the timeliness of conducting these 

meetings rather than the outcome of these meetings, we believe 

that Indicators 15 and 16 measure the “use” of these dispute 

resolution options and, thus, the measurement for both of these 

indicators is consistent with the statute. Additionally, IDEA 

section 616(b)(2)(A) requires each State to establish measurable 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 30 of 44

and rigorous targets for the indicators established under the 

priority areas described in section 616(a)(3). IDEA section 

616(b)(2)(C)(ii)(II) requires the State to report annually to 

the Secretary on the performance of the State under the State’s 

performance plan, which includes measurable and rigorous targets 

for each indicator. Therefore, we cannot eliminate the 

requirement to set, and annually report on, measurable and 

rigorous targets for Indicators 15 and 16.

Changes: None.

New Indicator 17: State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)

Comment: We received multiple comments regarding proposed 

Indicator 17. Some commenters applauded the proposal as a true 

step towards results driven accountability. These same 

commenters expressed that the proposal was well-developed and 

detailed, and offered enough room for each State to craft and 

implement an SSIP that will help each State focus on systemic 

improvement. Other commenters were concerned that new Indicator 

17 is duplicative of other improvement efforts already underway 

in a State and that the burden associated with developing, 

implementing, and reporting on the SSIP far outweighs any 

associated benefit. 

Discussion: New Indicator 17 is each State’s opportunity to 

develop and implement a comprehensive, ambitious, yet achievable 

plan focused on improving results for students with 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 31 of 44

disabilities. OSEP strongly encourages alignment between 

Indicator 17 and other improvement activities or plans that are

already being implemented in the State, as long as the existing 

plan is based on recent data and infrastructure analyses. 

Additionally, in order to use an existing plan to meet the 

requirements of Indicator 17, that plan must have a direct 

impact on students with disabilities and align with the Stateidentified Measurable Result for Students with Disabilities. We 

do not agree that Indicator 17 presents an increase in the

reporting burden because a State is no longer required to 

develop and report in the SPP/APR on a separate set of 

improvement activities for each indicator. In addition, a State

is encouraged to align and integrate existing State-level 

improvement efforts on which data are already collected and 

reported. This alignment, when used to meet the requirements of 

Indicator 17, if appropriate, will reduce the reporting burden.

Changes: None.

Comment: Many commenters requested that OSEP further clarify 

and define the terms used throughout Indicator 17 and provide 

more guidance on the proposed process for developing the SSIP.

Discussion: We agree with the commenters that some of the terms 

require additional explanation and that the process for 

developing and implementing the SSIP should be further 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 32 of 44

clarified. In response, we made several structural and 

definitional revisions to Indicator 17 - 

 We labeled the two sections in the indicator to make clear 

that the first section is “Overview of The Three Phases of 

the SSIP” and the second section is the “Specific Content 

of Each Phase of the SSIP”. Below we discuss the revisions 

by section.

 Measurement – The measurement, while not substantively 

changed, was reworded for clarity. We added a section to 

clarify that the State must include in its FFY 2013 SPP/APR 

due February 1, 2015 the State’s baseline data for FFY 2013 

and its targets for FFYs 2014 through 2018 for its “Stateidentified Measurable Result for Children with 

Disabilities.” We also clarified that the State must 

include updated data for FFY 2014 through FFY 2018 for its 

“State-identified Measurable Result for Children with 

Disabilities” in its respective SPPs/APRs for FFYs 2014

through 2018.

Overview of the Three Phases of the SSIP

 Stakeholder Involvement – We added a section to clarify 

that stakeholders must be included throughout the 

process of developing, implementing, evaluating, and 

revising the SSIP, and included in establishing the 

State’s targets under Indicator 17. The SSIP should 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 33 of 44

include information about stakeholder involvement in all 

three phases.

 Phase I – We labeled this as the ”Analysis” phase. 

Phase I has five components and is due with the FFY 2013 

SPP/APR submitted on February 2, 2015.

o Data Analysis. This component has not been 

substantively revised.

o Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support 

Improvement and Build Capacity. The title of this 

component was revised to clarify that the State 

must provide an analysis, and not just a list, of 

the State infrastructure that supports improvement 

and builds capacity.

o In response to commenters, the proposed 

“Identification of the Focus of Improvement” was 

retitled “State-identified Measurable Result for 

Children with Disabilities” to clarify that the 

focus for improvement must be a student-level 

outcome, in contrast to a process outcome.

o “Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies” was 

added to focus States on identifying strategies 

that are sound, logical, aligned, and will lead to 

a measurable improvement in the State-identified 

result for students with disabilities. 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 34 of 44

o Theory of Action. This component has not been 

revised in the description of Phase I.

 Phase II- We labeled this as the “Plan” phase and made 

changes as described below to the section titled “Support 

for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices” and the 

section titled, “Evaluation.” 

 Phase III – We labeled Phase III as the ”Implementation and 

Evaluation” phase. We clarified that a State will provide 

descriptions of its ongoing evaluation and revisions to the 

SSIP during this phase.

Specific Content of Each Phase of the SSIP

This section provides comprehensive definitions and explanations

of all of the terms and concepts used in the Overview section.

Phase I

 Data analysis is defined as description of how the State 

identified and analyzed key data, including data from 

SPP/APR indicators, 618 data collections, and other 

available data as applicable, to: (1) select the Stateidentified Measureable Result for Children with 

Disabilities, and (2) identify root causes contributing to 

low performance. The description must include information 

about how the data were disaggregated by multiple variables 

(e.g., LEA, region, race/ethnicity, disability category, 

placement, etc.). As part of its data analysis, the State 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 35 of 44

should also consider compliance data and whether those data 

present potential barriers to improvement. In addition, if 

the State identifies any concerns about the quality of the 

data, the description must include how the State will 

address these concerns. Finally, if additional data are 

needed, the description should include the methods and 

timelines to collect and analyze the additional data.

 Analysis of State Infrastructure to Support Improvement and 

Build Capacity is defined as a description of how the State 

analyzed the capacity of its current infrastructure to 

support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to 

implement, scale up, and sustain the use of evidence-based 

practices to improve results for students with 

disabilities. State systems that make up its 

infrastructure include, at a minimum: governance, fiscal, 

quality standards, professional development, data, 

technical assistance, and accountability/monitoring. The 

description must include current strengths of the systems, 

the extent the systems are coordinated, and areas for 

improvement of functioning within and across the systems. 

The State must also identify current State-level 

improvement plans and initiatives, including special and 

general education improvement plans and initiatives, and 

describe the extent that these initiatives are aligned, and 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 36 of 44

how they are, or could be, integrated with, the SSIP. 

Finally, the State should identify representatives (e.g., 

offices, agencies, positions, individuals, and other 

stakeholders) that were involved in developing Phase I of 

the SSIP and that will be involved in developing and 

implementing Phase II of the SSIP.

 State-identified Measureable Result for Children with 

Disabilities is defined as a statement of the result(s) the 

State intends to achieve through the implementation of the 

SSIP. The State-identified result(s) may, but need not, be 

an SPP/APR indicator or a component of an SPP/APR 

indicator. The State-identified result(s) must be clearly 

based on the Data and State Infrastructure Analyses and 

must be a student-level outcome in contrast to a process 

outcome. The State may select a single result (e.g., 

increasing the graduation rate for students with 

disabilities) or a cluster of related results (e.g., 

increasing the graduation rate and decreasing the dropout 

rate for students with disabilities).

 Selection of Coherent Improvement Strategies is defined as 

an explanation of how the improvement strategies were 

selected, and why they are sound, logical and aligned, and 

will lead to a measurable improvement in the Stateidentified result(s). The improvement strategies should 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 37 of 44

include the strategies, identified through the Data and 

State Infrastructure Analyses, needed to improve the State 

infrastructure and to support LEA implementation of 

evidence-based practices to improve the State-identified 

result(s) for students with disabilities. The State must

describe how implementation of the improvement strategies 

will address identified root causes for low performance and 

ultimately build LEA capacity to achieve the Stateidentified Measureable Result(s) for Students with 

Disabilities.

 Theory of Action is defined as a graphic illustration that 

shows the rationale of how implementing the coherent set 

of improvement strategies selected will increase the 

State’s capacity to lead meaningful change in LEAs, and 

achieve improvement in the State-identified result(s) for 

children with disabilities.

Phase II

Phase II was revised to provide additional guidance on 

developing the plan, based on the Phase I analysis, that will be 

implemented in the State to achieve the State-identified 

measurable result for students with disabilities. Phase II 

includes infrastructure development, support for LEA 

implementation of evidence-based practices, and evaluation.
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 38 of 44

 Infrastructure Development: A State must specify 

improvements that will be made to the State infrastructure 

to better support LEAs to implement and scale up evidencebased practices to improve the State-identified result(s) 

for children with disabilities. Additionally, a State must 

identify the steps the State will take to further align and 

leverage current improvement plans and initiatives in the 

State, including general and special education improvement 

plans and initiatives, which impact students with 

disabilities. This section must also identify who will be 

in charge of implementing the changes to infrastructure, 

resources needed, expected outcomes, and timelines for 

completing improvement efforts. In addition, the State 

should specify how it will involve multiple offices within 

the State educational agency (SEA), as well as other State 

agencies, in the improvement of its infrastructure.

 Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-based Practices: 

A State must specify how it will support LEAs in 

implementing the evidence-based practices that will result 

in changes in LEA, school, and provider practices to 

achieve the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for 

Children with Disabilities. This section must identify 

steps and specific activities needed to implement the 

coherent improvement strategies, including communication 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 39 of 44

strategies and stakeholder involvement; how identified 

barriers will be addressed; who will be in charge of 

implementing; how the activities will be implemented with 

fidelity; the resources that will be used to implement 

them; how the expected outcomes of the improvement 

strategies will be measured; and timelines for completion. 

In addition, the State should specify how it will involve 

multiple offices within the SEA (or other State agencies) 

to support LEAs in scaling up and sustaining the 

implementation of the evidence-based practices once they 

have been implemented with fidelity.

 Evaluation: The evaluation must include short-term and 

long-term objectives to measure implementation of the SSIP 

and its impact on achieving measureable improvement in 

State-identified result(s) for children with disabilities. 

The evaluation must be aligned to the theory of action and 

other components of the SSIP, include how stakeholders will 

be involved, and include the methods that the State will 

use to collect and analyze data to evaluate implementation 

and outcomes of the SSIP. The evaluation must specify: (1)

how the State will use the information from the evaluation

to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of the 

SSIP and the progress toward achieving intended 

improvements in the State-identified result(s) for children 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 40 of 44

with disabilities, and to make modifications to the SSIP as 

necessary; and (2) how information from the evaluation will 

be disseminated to stakeholders.

A State may also amend previously-submitted information from 

Phase I to update it and ensure its accuracy.

Phase III

Phase III was revised for clarity. In Phase III, the State 

must, consistent with the evaluation described in Phase II, 

assess and report on its progress in implementing the SSIP. 

This reporting will include data and analysis on the extent to 

which the State has made progress toward and/or met the Stateestablished short-term and long-term objectives for 

implementation of the SSIP and its progress in achieving the 

State-identified Measureable Result for Children with 

Disabilities. If the State intends to continue implementing the 

SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data 

from the evaluation support this decision. Also, the State must 

provide a rationale for any revisions that have been made, or 

revisions the State plans to make, in the SSIP in response to 

evaluation data, and describe how stakeholders were included in 

the decision-making process.

Changes: As described in the Discussion section directly above, 

Indicator 17 has been revised to address commenters’ questions 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 41 of 44

and concerns regarding clarifying the components and phases of 

the State’s development and implementation of the SSIP.

Comment: A few commenters requested that the SSIP not be 

referred to as an indicator as the structure and content of 

Indicator 17 is inconsistent with the other SPP/APR indicators.

Discussion: We do not agree that the SSIP should not be 

included as an indicator because its structure and the content 

is not the same as the other SPP/APR indicators. By designating 

the SSIP as an indicator, OSEP requires each State to identify 

its baseline data in FFY 2013 and targets for FFY 2014 through 

FFY 2018 that reflect improvement over the baseline data.

Changes: None.

Comment: A few commenters asked whether a State must require an 

SSIP of its LEAs.

Discussion: Indicator 17 is a State-wide indicator and there is 

no requirement that the State require its LEAs to develop and 

implement a SSIP, but the State may do so. 

Changes: None.

Comment: Many commenters requested that OSEP provide the 

criteria by which OSEP will evaluate an SSIP.

Discussion: We are developing the criteria by which OSEP will 

evaluate an SSIP and will share those criteria with States as a 

part of the support we provide to States under Results Driven 

Accountability.
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 42 of 44

Changes: None.

Comment: Several commenters requested that OSEP provide an SSIP 

model or template for States to follow.

Discussion: Indicator 17 outlines the specified content the 

State must include in each of the three phases of the SSIP. 

Additionally, GRADS 360, the online SPP/APR tool, will provide 

fields to report on each of the SSIP’s required components. OSEP 

has collaborated, and will continue to work, with technical 

assistance providers to provide States with further guidance 

regarding States’ reporting under each phase and step in the 

process. 

Changes: None.

Comment: A few commenters requested that OSEP provide guidance 

on how to establish targets for Indicator 17.

Discussion: The FFY 2013 SPP/APR, submitted in February 2015, 

must include FFY 2013 data as the baseline data and measurable 

and rigorous targets for FFYs 2014 through FFY 2018 for 

Indicator 17 that are: expressed as percentages; and reflect a 

measurement that is aligned with the State-identified Measurable 

Result for Children with Disabilities, i.e., the desired childlevel outcome that is clearly based on the State’s Data and 

State Infrastructure analyses. For example, a State might 

report that “after conducting its Data and State Infrastructure 

Analyses, the State has determined that its State-identified 
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 43 of 44

Measurable Result for Children with Disabilities will be how 

well it improves third grade reading test results for children 

with disabilities. .” For Indicator 17, the State would provide

baseline data for FFY 2013 (expressed as a percentage) on the 

third grade reading assessment results for children with 

disabilities. The State would provide annual targets for each 

of the five years from FFY 2014 through FFY 2018 (expressed as a 

percentage) and the State’s end target for FFY 2018 under this 

SPP/APR would have to demonstrate improvement over the State’s 

FFY 2013 baseline data. 

Changes: We have added guidance to the Part B State Performance 

Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance Report (APR) Instruction Sheet on 

establishing measurable and rigorous targets for Indicator 17.

Comment: A few commenters asked how Indicator 17 would impact a 

State’s determination under IDEA section 616(d).

Discussion: Indicator 17 will not impact the Department’s 

determinations made under IDEA section 616(d) in 2015 based on 

the FFY 2013 SPP/APR. The Department will consider the State’s 

Indicator 17 and SSIP data in the data the Department considers 

for determinations made beginning with 2016 as part of Results

Driven Accountability.

Changes: None.

Current Indicator 20: Timely and Accurate Data
1820-0624 60-Day Comments and Discussion 3/12/14

Page 44 of 44

Comment: A few commenters are concerned that data quality will 

suffer because States would no longer be required to report on 

timely and accurate data.

Discussion: We do not agree that data quality will be 

compromised because States are no longer required to report on 

Indicator 20. We will continue to consider data accuracy and 

the timeliness of a State’s submission when making annual 

determinations under section 616(d).

Changes: None.