Proposed FFY 2013

– FFY 201 8 Part B SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04736) 1820
- 0624: Part B SPP/APR Page 1 of 6 The purpose of this document is to provide the public with a concise and accessible explanation and rationale of the proposed revisions to 1820
- 0624: Part B State Performance Report (Part B SPP) and Annual Performance Report (Part B APR) and is divided in two sections
. The first section, “Background

, ” lays out the legal requirements, i.e., elements of the SPP/APR that are required by statute and may not be changed , and describes prior significant milestones and SPP/APR revisions. The second section, “Prop osed FFY 2013

-FFY 2018 SPP/APR” describes the proposed revisions. A majority of this information is taken verbatim from the “Justification Statement” that is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act.
1. BACKGROUND 1.a Legal Requirements The State performance plan (SPP) and annual performance report (APR) and its contents are prescribed b y statute and regulation
. Plan and Report : Section 616(b)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA or Act) requires that , not later than one ye ar after the date of enactment of ID EA Improvement Act of 2004, each State have in place an IDEA Part B S PP that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of ID EA Part B and describe s how the State will improve such implementation. IDEA s ection 616(b)(1)(C) requires each State to review its SPP at least once every

six years. Consistent with IDEA section 616(b)(2)(C)(ii), each State must report annually

to the public on the performance of each local educational agency located in the S tate on the targets in the State’s performance plan and to the Secretary on the State’s performance under the SPP, i.e. , an APR
. Indic ators : As required by the Act , 1 the SPP is comprised of quantifiable 2 indicators in the following areas

–  The provisio n of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
 State exercise of its general supervisory authority including

– o Child find o Effective monitoring o The use of resolution sessions and mediation o A sy stem of transition services as defined in IDEA sections 602(34) and 637(a)(9)

1 See IDEA sections 612(a)(15), 612(a)(16), 612(a)(22), and 616(a)(3) and (4). 2 Section 616(a)(3) also allows for qualitative indicators as necessary; however, prior to this submission, OSEP has never proposed a qualitative indicator.Proposed FFY 2013

– FFY 201 8 Part B SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04736) 1820
- 0624: Part B SPP/APR Page 2 of 6  Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services, to the extent the representation is the result of inappropriate identification The SPP also in cludes indicators that are not specifically included in the statute, like suspension and expulsion and parent involvement, that address areas critical to ensuring improved educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities. IDEA s ection 616(a)(4). Targets : The State must establish measurable and rigorous targets for each indicator. IDEA section 616(b)(2). Improvement : Pursuant to IDEA section 616(b)(1)(A), the SPP must include a description of how the State will improve its imp lementation of IDEA. Report on Slippage : Section 80.40(b)(2) of the Education Department General Administrative Regulation s , or EDGAR, requires that grantee APRs include the reasons for slippage if the established objectives, i.e., targets , were not met. 1.b Prior Significant Milestones or Revisions The IDEA Part B SPP/APR package (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) number (04736) 1820
- 0624) was originall y approved b y OMB in 2005. The original ID EA Part B SPP/APR package contained 20 indicators coverin g the areas required b y the Act and other key areas . Some indicators corresponded to the statutory language, e.g., Indicators 9 and 10 regarding the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services to the extent that representation is due to inappropriate identification, while others were developed to respond to general priority areas, e.g., Indicator 5, the percentage of children with disabilities served in different settings, developed to address the p rovision of FAPE in the LRE. In December 2005, e ach State submitted its SPP, including targets through FFY 2009 (February 2011 submission). In 2011, to meet the requirement set forth in IDEA section 616(b)(1)(C) to review the SPP at least once every six years, OSEP proposed to make no major changes to the SPP and to maintain the indicators as written. Therefore, with its 2011 SPP submission, each State extended its targets and improvement activities through FFY 2012. In 2012, OSEP proposed eliminating two indicators where OSEP determined that the information submitted was duplicative of data submitted by States through another OMB
approved information collection (EDFacts) , thereby reducing reporting burden
. Additionally , these indicators were not required by the statute , and, because the data are available to OSEP through the other data collection s , OSEP could continue to use the data to evaluate a State’s performance as part of OSEP’s determination process
. As a result, States were no longer required to report on Indicators 16 (State Complaint Timelines) and 17 (Due Process Hearing Timelines).Proposed FFY 2013

– FFY 201 8 Part B SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04736) 1820
- 0624: Part B SPP/APR Page 3 of 6 Finally , also in 2012, OSEP requested and was granted permission by OMB to make several significant technical amendments to the approved SPP/APR package which red uced reporting burden
. Beginning with the FFY 2011 submission (due February 2013), States

–  Are not required to report on progress and must only report on slippage for a particular indicator if the State does not meet its target for that indicator.
 May h ave one set of improvement activities that covers all indicators instead of reporting improvement activities under each indicator.
 Must only

report on improvement activities for indicators where it did not meet its target
 Are not required to provide data f or Indicator 20 with its initial submission.
2. PROPOSED FFY 2013

– FFY 2018 SPP/APR OSEP is re conceptualizing its accountability s ys tem. That sy stem, Results Driven Accountability (RDA), is aligned to best support States in improving results for student s with disabilities. Previously , OSEP’s accountability s ys tem, including the SPP/APR, was heavily focused on compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements , with limited focus on how the requirements impacted results for students with disabilities. RDA balances the focus on improved educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities while considering compliance as it relates to those results and outcomes
. The SPP/APR is a critical component of RDA. The proposed SPP/APR rev isions are based on the following principles

–  Alignment with the RDA vision and its goals
 Reduc tion of reporting burden b y requiring onl y what is necessary in statute and regulation and vital to ensuring improved educational results and functional outc omes
 Retain ing consistent data sources and measurements as much as possible Proposal : 1. Combine the SPP and APR into one document

– There is no statutory or regulatory requirement that a State maintain separate SPP and APR documents. Some States currentl y have merged SPP/APR documents , eliminating the need to maintain and update two separate documents . Requiring onl y one document , which meets both the SPP and APR requirements , will reduce duplication and reporting burden. 2. Collect SPP/APR through an online submission system

– OSEP is currently developing an online reporting and analy sis sy stem (GRADS 360) that includes the capability to collect the SPP/APR electronically . As conceptualized, the system will prepopulate fields using prior ye ars’ SPP/APR data and drawing current data from other U
. S
. Department of Education (ED) data sets, e.g., EDFacts and CSPR, where available.Proposed FFY 2013

– FFY 201 8 Part B SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04736) 1820
- 0624: Part B SPP/APR Page 4 of 6 Additionally , States will be able to import State
- maintained data using an interface such as Excel or a CSV file. States will be re quired to submit through GRADS 360 beginning with the FFY 2013 (February 2015) submission. 3. R eport on slippage onl y if the State does not meet its target for the reporting year. 4. Develop s treamlined and coordinated s ys tems descriptions

– Currently , States are required to provide a s ys tem description b y indicator. Neither the statute nor its implementing regulations require a discrete description under each indicator. Recognizing that a State’s sy stems are interconnected and that the success of one s ys tem m ay be highl y dependent on that of another, we believe that providing one systems description, inclusive of all of a State’s s ys tems needed to improve educational results and functional outcomes for students with disabilities, will provide a cohesive repres entation of the State’s s ys tems that highlights linkages and clearl y delineates where improvement may

be needed. 5. States are no longer required to report on Improvement Activities for each indicator; rather States will present a comprehensive State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) ( through a p roposed qualitative In dicator 17). The SSIP is a comprehensive, ambitious ye t achievable plan for improving results for students with disabilities. The SSIP is a multi
- year plan that the State develops in two phases. The basis for this plan is a detailed data and infrastructure analy sis that will guide the development of strategies to increase the State’s capacity to structure and lead meaningful change in local educational agencies (LEAs). In order to improve result s, States must assess the capacity of their current infrastructure s ys tems and their ability to enhance this infrastructure to increase the capacity of LEAs to implement, scale up, and sustain evidence
- based practices that will result in improved outcomes for children with disabilities. The data and infrastructure anal ys is should use multiple data sources, including SPP/APR indicators and IDEA section 618 State
- reported data, to identify s ys temic approaches that will lead to improved results for students with disabilities across key measures: performance on assessment, graduation with a regular diploma, and post
- school outcomes. While the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of student outcomes, the State must also address in its SSIP how the State wi ll use information from its general supervision sy stems to identify

areas that need improvement
. As stated under Number 6 below, in addition to evaluating a State’s SSIP, OSEP will continue to collect quantifiable information on the timely correction of findings of noncompliance under APR compliance Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11,12, and 13 when OSEP evaluat es effective monitoring by States
. 6. Eliminating Indicators 15 and 20 Currently approved Indicator 15

– We propose to remove currentl y approved Indicator 15. Indicator 15 requires a State to report on the effectiveness of its generalProposed FFY 2013

– FFY 201 8 Part B SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04736) 1820
- 0624: Part B SPP/APR Page 5 of 6

supervision sy stems by

reporting on the percent of findings of noncompliance identified in the prior fiscal year and corrected as soon as possible but in no case later than one ye ar from identification in the reporting fiscal year for the APR
. As required for all compliance indicators, States must meet a target of 100% for Indicator 15
. ID EA section 616(a)(1) requires the Secretary to monitor implementation of IDEA through oversight of the exercise of general supervision by the States. Further, IDEA section 616(a)(3) requires that the Secretary monitor each State using quantifiable indicators in each of the specified priority areas, including State exercise of general supervisory authority, which includes effective monitoring; and using such qualitative indicators as are needed to adequatel y measure performance in the specified priority areas. OSEP believes that the timely correction data that are required to be reported by States under the quantifiable APR Indicators that measure compliance with certain ID EA requirements (specifically Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) provide OSEP with the quantifiable information necessary to carry out its responsibility

to monitor a State’s exercise of its general supervisory authority , including the effectiveness of its monitoring sy stem, as required by IDEA. The instructions for these indicators require States to provide detailed information about the timely correction of noncompliance rep orted for these indicators in the previous year’s APR. As with all indicators that measure compliance, the expectation is that a State must meet a target of 100% both for the indicator measurement (e.g. , 100% of evaluations are timel y for Indicator 11) a s well as a target of 100% of its findings of noncompliance made in the prior year for that indicator were corrected in a timely manner. Therefore, the data from these indicators provide a reasonable quantifiable basis for OSEP to reach a determination as to whether a State has a monitoring s ys tem that is effective in correcting identified noncompliance within one year of identification. This change will lessen the reporting burden to States and OSEP is able to use information reported in these other APR compliance indicators to evaluate the State’s compliance with the requirement in IDEA sections 612(a)(11) and 616(a)(1)(C) to monitor implementation of Part B of the IDEA b y local educational agencies (LEAs). OSEP would continue to consider the timely correction information as a factor in its determination process. OSEP is also proposing to add a qualitative indicator to measure the effectiveness of a State’s general supervision sy stem in improving results for children with disabilities. (See # 5 above)
. In addition, OSEP would continue to oversee States’ general supervision through implementing supplemental monitoring activities, such as through OSEP’s review of State complaint and hearing data submitted through IDEA section 618. Currently approved Indi cator 20

– We propose to remove currentl y approved Indicator 20. Indicator 20 requires a State to provide data on the timeliness and accuracy of its data reported to the Department under IDEA sections 616 and 618. The proposed change would remove the requirement for States to report the data on the timeliness and accuracy of these data in the APR because the submission isProposed FFY 2013

– FFY 201 8 Part B SPP/APR: Explanation and Rationale

(04736) 1820
- 0624: Part B SPP/APR Page 6 of 6

duplicative. IDEA section 618(a) requires that States provide data each ye ar to the Secretary of Education and the public as specified in section 618(a). States provide these data through submissions to EDF act s . Through these other submissions, OSEP would be provided with the information necessary to complete its analysis and determine the State’s compliance with the requirement to sub mit timely and accurate data. A State’s compliance with the requirement to submit timely and accurate IDEA section 618 data would be considered in the State’s annual determination. This change would lessen the reporting burden to S tates while continuing to collect the required information. As the result of these proposed revisions, the SPP/APR will include 17 indicators

– 1. Graduation 2. Dropout 3. Assessments 4. Suspension/Expulsion 5. LRE 6. Preschool LRE 7. Outcomes 8. Parent Involvement 9. Disproportionate Representation 10. Disp roportionate Representation

– disability category 11. Evaluation Timelines 12. Preschool Transition 13. Secondary Transition 14. Post
- school Outcomes 15. Resolution Session s 16. Mediation 17. State Sy stemic Improvement Plan