2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 1

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 

Part B Indicator Measurement Table

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 

1. Percent of youth with IEPs graduating 

from high school with a regular diploma.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Data Source:

Same data as used for reporting to the Department 

under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA).

Measurement:

States must report using the adjusted cohort 

graduation rate required under the ESEA. 

Sampling is not allowed.

Describe the results of the State’s examination of the 

data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for 

the FFY 2013 APR, use data from 2012-2013), and 

compare the results to the target. Provide the actual 

numbers used in the calculation.

Provide a narrative that describes the conditions 

youth must meet in order to graduate with a regular 

diploma and, if different, the conditions that youth 

with IEPs must meet in order to graduate with a 

regular diploma. If there is a difference, explain why.

Targets should be the same as the annual 

graduation rate targets under Title I of the ESEA. 

2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of 

high school.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Data Source:

Same data as used for reporting to the Department 

under IDEA section 618.

Measurement:

States must report a 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. 

Sampling is not allowed.

Use 618 exiting data reported to the Department,

and the definitions specified, in the EDFacts file 

specification C009.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/eden/n

on-xml/c009-9-0.doc

Include in the denominator the following exiting 

categories: (a) graduated with a regular high school 

diploma; (b) received a certificate; (c) reached 

maximum age; (d) dropped out; or (e) died. 

Do not include in the denominator the number of 

youths with IEPs who exited special education due 

to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who 

moved, but are known to be continuing in education.
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 2

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

3. Participation and performance of children 

with IEPs on statewide assessments: 

A. Percent of the districts with a disability 

subgroup that meets the State’s 

minimum “n” size that meet the State’s 

AYP/AMO targets for the disability 

subgroup.

B. Participation rate for children with 

IEPs.

C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs 

against grade level, modified and 

alternate academic achievement 

standards.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Data Source:

3A. (choose either 3A.1 or 3A.2)

3A.1 AYP data used for accountability reporting 

under Title I of the ESEA.

3A.2 AMO data used for accountability reporting 

under Title I of the ESEA as a result of ESEA 

flexibility.

3B. Assessment data reported in the Consolidated 

State Performance Report (CSPR) reporting on 

ESEA (EDFacts file specifications C185 and 188).

3C. Assessment data reported in the Consolidated 

State Performance Report (CSPR) reporting on 

ESEA (EDFacts file specifications C175 and 178).

Measurement: 

A. (choose either A.1 or A.2)

A.1 AYP percent = [(# of districts with a disability 

subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size 

that meet the State’s AYP targets for the disability 

subgroup) divided by the (total # of districts that 

have a disability subgroup that meets the State’s 

minimum “n” size)] times 100.

A.2 AMO percent = [(# of districts with a disability 

subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size 

that meet the State’s AMO targets for the 

disability subgroup) divided by the (total # of 

districts that have a disability subgroup that meets 

the State’s minimum “n” size)] times 100.

B. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with 

IEPs participating in an assessment) divided by the 

(total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the 

testing window, calculated separately for reading and 

math)]. The participation rate is based on all children 

with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled 

for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a 

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the targets. Provide the actual 

numbers used in the calculation.

States are encouraged to present their APR 

information in summary tables and include multiple 

years of data for comparison purposes.

Include information regarding where to find public 

reports of assessment results, i.e., link to the Web 

site where results are reported.

Indicator 3A: The data source and measurement for 

3A is dependent on whether the State applied for, 

and was granted, a waiver of the requirements to 

determine Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for LEAs 

and schools as part of requesting ESEA flexibility. 

States that either did not apply for and receive ESEA 

flexibility, or applied for and received that flexibility 

but did not apply for a waiver of determining AYP 

should choose data source and measurement 3A.1. 

States with an approved ESEA flexibility request that 

includes a waiver of determining AYP should choose 

data source and measurement 3A.2. 

Report only on the AYP/AMO assessment targets for 

reading/language arts and mathematics proficiency, 

not targets for graduation or other elements of 

AYP/AMO. 

Indicator 3B: Provide separate reading/language 

arts and mathematics participation rates, inclusive of 

all ESEA grades assessed (3-8 and high school), for 

children with IEPs. Account for ALL children with 

IEPs, in all grades assessed, including children not 

participating in assessments and those not enrolled 

for a full academic year. Only include children with 

disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing. 

Indicator 3C: Proficiency calculations in this APR 

must result in proficiency rates for each content area 

across all ESEA assessments (combining regular 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 3

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

full academic year. 

C. Proficiency rate percent = ([(# of children with 

IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade 

level, modified and alternate academic achievement 

standards) divided by the (total # of children with 

IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a 

proficiency level was assigned, and, calculated 

separately for reading and math)]. The proficiency 

rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a 

full academic year and those not enrolled for a full 

academic year.

and all alternates) for children with IEPs, in all grades 

assessed (3-8 and high school), including both 

children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year 

and those not enrolled for a full academic year. 

States are encouraged to report using two rates –

one for reading/language arts covering all assessed 

grades and one for mathematics covering all 

assessed grades. Only include children with 

disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing. 

4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:

A. 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; and

B. 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) 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. 

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A); 1412(a)(22))

Data Source:

Data collected under section 618 of the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (Report of 

Children with Disabilities Subject to Disciplinary 

Removal). Discrepancy can be computed by either 

comparing the rates of suspensions and expulsions 

for children with IEPs to rates for nondisabled 

children within the LEA or by comparing the rates of 

suspensions and expulsions for children with IEPs 

among LEAs within the State.

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of districts that have a significant 

discrepancy in the rates of suspensions and 

expulsions for greater than 10 days in a school 

year of children with IEPs) divided by the (# of 

districts in the State)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of districts that have: (a) a 

significant discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the 

rates of suspensions and expulsions of greater 

than 10 days in a school year of children with 

IEPs; and (b) 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, 

Sampling from State’s 618 data is not allowed.

Describe the results of the State’s examination of the 

data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for 

the FFY 2013 APR, use data from 2012-2013), 

including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity to 

determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in 

the rates of long-term suspensions and expulsions of 

children with IEPs, as required at 20 U.S.C. 

1412(a)(22). The State’s examination must include 

one of the following comparisons:

 The rates of suspensions and expulsions for 

children with IEPs among LEAs within the State; 

or

 The rates of suspensions and expulsions for 

children with IEPs to nondisabled children within 

the LEAs.

In the description, specify which method the State 

used to determine possible discrepancies and 

explain what constitutes those discrepancies. If the 

State used a minimum “n” size requirement, report 

the number of districts excluded from the calculation 

as a result of this requirement. States have the 

option of using the “total number of districts” OR the 

“number of districts that meet the State’s minimum n 

size for one or more racial/ethnic group” as the 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 4

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

and procedural safeguards) divided by the (# of 

districts in the State)] times 100.

Include State’s definition of “significant discrepancy.”

denominator in the calculation for B4A or B4B. 

For 4A, provide the actual numbers used in the 

calculation and if significant discrepancies occurred,

describe how the State educational agency reviewed 

and, if appropriate, revised (or required the affected 

local educational agency to revise) its policies, 

procedures, and practices relating to the 

development and implementation of IEPs, the use of 

positive behavioral interventions and supports, and 

procedural safeguards, to ensure that such policies, 

procedures, and practices comply with applicable 

requirements. 

For 4B, provide the following: (a) the number of 

districts that have a significant discrepancy, by race 

or ethnicity, in the rates of suspensions and 

expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year 

for children with IEPs; and (b) the number of districts 

in which policies, procedures or practices 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. 

If discrepancies occurred and the district with 

discrepancies had policies, procedures or practices 

that contributed to the significant discrepancy and 

that do not comply with requirements relating to the 

development and implementation of IEPs, the use of 

positive behavioral interventions and supports, and 

procedural safeguards, describe how the State 

ensured that such policies, procedures, and 

practices were revised to comply with applicable 

requirements consistent with OSEP Memorandum 

09-02, dated October 17, 2008.

Targets must be 0% for 4B.

5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 Data Source: For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 5

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

through 21 served:

A. Inside the regular class 80% or more 

of the day;

B. Inside the regular class less than 40% 

of the day; and

C. In separate schools, residential 

facilities, or homebound/hospital 

placements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Data collected under IDEA section 618. 

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside 

the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided 

by the (total # of students aged 6 through 21 with 

IEPs)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served inside 

the regular class less than 40% of the day) 

divided by the (total # of students aged 6 through 

21 with IEPs)] times 100.

C. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs served in 

separate schools, residential facilities, or 

homebound/hospital placements) divided by the 

(total # of students aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] 

times 100.

on a date between October 1 and December 1, 2013

and due on February 1, 2014. Sampling from 

State’s 618 data is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target.

If the data reported in this indicator are not the same 

as the State’s data reported under IDEA section 618, 

explain. 

6. Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with 

IEPs attending a:

A. Regular early childhood program and 

receiving the majority of special education 

and related services in the regular early 

childhood program; and

B. Separate special education class, 

separate school or residential facility.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618.

Measurement:

A. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with 

IEPs attending a regular early childhood program 

and receiving the majority of special education and 

related services in the regular early childhood 

program) divided by the (total # of children aged 3 

through 5 with IEPs)] times 100.

B. Percent = [(# of children aged 3 through 5 with 

IEPs attending a separate special education class, 

separate school or residential facility) divided by the 

(total # of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs)] times 

100.

For this indicator, report 618 data that were collected 

on a date between October 1 and December 1, 2013

and due on February 1, 2014. Sampling from 

State’s 618 data is not allowed.

If the data reported in this indicator are not the same 

as the State’s data reported under IDEA section 618, 

explain. 

7. Percent of preschool children aged 3 

through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate 

improved:

A. Positive social-emotional skills 

Data Source:

State selected data source.

Measurement:

Sampling of children for assessment is allowed. 

When sampling is used, submit a description of the 

sampling methodology outlining how the design will 

yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 6

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

(including social relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and 

skills (including early language/ 

communication and early literacy); and

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet 

their needs.

(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))

Outcomes:

A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social 

relationships);

B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills 

(including early language/communication and 

early literacy); and 

C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their 

needs.

Progress categories for A, B and C:

a. Percent of preschool children who did not 

improve functioning = [(# of preschool 

children who did not improve functioning) 

divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs

assessed)] times 100.

b. Percent of preschool children who improved 

functioning but not sufficient to move nearer 

to functioning comparable to same-aged 

peers = [(# of preschool children who 

improved functioning but not sufficient to 

move nearer to functioning comparable to 

same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool 

children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.

c. Percent of preschool children who improved 

functioning to a level nearer to same-aged 

peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool 

children who improved functioning to a level 

nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach 

it) divided by (# of preschool children with 

IEPs assessed)] times 100.

d. Percent of preschool children who improved 

functioning to reach a level comparable to 

same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children 

who improved functioning to reach a level 

comparable to same-aged peers) divided by 

(# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] 

Instructions on page 2 for additional instructions on 

sampling.)

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the targets. States will use the 

progress categories for each of the three Outcomes 

to calculate and report the two Summary

Statements. States have provided targets for the 

two Summary Statements for the three Outcomes 

(six numbers for targets for each FFY). 

Report progress data and calculate Summary

Statements to compare against the six targets. 

Provide the actual numbers and percentages for the 

five reporting categories for each of the three 

outcomes.

In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining 

“comparable to same-aged peers.” If a State is using 

the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child 

Outcomes Summary Form (COSF), then the criteria 

for defining “comparable to same-aged peers” has 

been defined as a child who has been assigned a 

scored of 6 or 7 on the COSF.

In addition, list the instruments and procedures used 

to gather data for this indicator, including if the State 

is using the ECO COSF.
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 7

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

times 100.

e. Percent of preschool children who maintained 

functioning at a level comparable to sameaged peers = [(# of preschool children who 

maintained functioning at a level comparable 

to same-aged peers) divided by (# of 

preschool children with IEPs assessed)] 

times 100.

Summary Statements for Each of the Three 

Outcomes:

Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children 

who entered or exited the preschool program below 

age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who 

substantially increased their rate of growth by the 

time they turned 6 years of age or exited the 

program.

Measurement for Summary Statement 1:

Percent = # of preschool children reported in 

progress category (c) plus # of preschool children 

reported in category (d) divided by [# of preschool 

children reported in progress category (a) plus # of 

preschool children reported in progress category (b) 

plus # of preschool children reported in progress 

category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in 

progress category (d)] times 100.

Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool 

children who were functioning within age 

expectations in each Outcome by the time they 

turned 6 years of age or exited the program.

Measurement for Summary Statement 2: 

Percent = # of preschool children reported in 

progress category (d) plus # of preschool children 

reported in progress category (e) divided by [the total 

# of preschool children reported in progress 

categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e)] times 100.
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 8

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

8. Percent of parents with a child receiving 

special education services who report that 

schools facilitated parent involvement as a 

means of improving services and results 

for children with disabilities.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))

Data Source:

State selected data source.

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report 

schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of 

improving services and results for children with 

disabilities) divided by the (total # of respondent 

parents of children with disabilities)] times 100.

Sampling of parents from whom response is 

requested is allowed. When sampling is used, 

submit a description of the sampling methodology 

outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable 

estimates. (See General Instructions on page 2 for 

additional instructions on sampling.)

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target. Include a description of how 

the State has ensured that the response data are 

valid and reliable, including how the data represent 

the demographics of the State. Provide the actual 

numbers used in the calculation.

If the State is using a separate data collection 

methodology for preschool children, the State must 

provide separate baseline data, targets, and actual 

target data or discuss the procedures used to 

combine data from school age and preschool 

surveys in a manner that is valid and reliable. 

If States are using a survey and the survey is revised 

or a new survey is adopted, States must submit a 

copy with the APR.

States are encouraged to work in collaboration with 

their OSEP-funded parent centers in collecting data 

and implementing improvement activities for this 

indicator. 

Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representation

9. Percent of districts with disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups 

in special education and related services 

that is the result of inappropriate 

identification.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618 (Report of 

Children with Disabilities Receiving Special 

Education Under Part B of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act, As Amended) and the 

State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups in special 

education and related services was the result of 

Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for 

children aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA. 

Provide these data for all children with disabilities. 

States are not required to report on 

underrepresentation.

Provide the number of districts identified with 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic 

groups in special education and related services and 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 9

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

inappropriate identification.

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups in special 

education and related services that is the result of 

inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of 

districts in the State)] times 100.

Include State’s definition of “disproportionate 

representation.”

Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2013, 

describe how the State made its annual 

determination that the disproportionate 

overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic 

groups in special education and related services was 

the result of inappropriate identification as required 

by §§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using 

monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and 

procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate 

representation, analyze data, for each district, for all 

racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial 

and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 

'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of 

districts in which disproportionate representation of 

racial and ethnic groups in special education and 

related services is the result of inappropriate 

identification, even if the determination of 

inappropriate identification was made after the end of 

the FFY 2013 reporting period, i.e., after June 30, 

2014. If inappropriate identification is identified, 

report on corrective actions taken.

the number of districts identified with 

disproportionate representation that is the result of 

inappropriate identification.

Consider using multiple methods in calculating 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic 

groups to reduce the risk of overlooking potential 

problems. 

Describe the method(s) used to calculate 

disproportionate representation. If the State used a 

minimum “n” size requirement, report the number of 

districts totally excluded from the calculation as a 

result of this requirement because the district did not 

meet the minimum “n” size for any racial/ethnic 

group. States have the option of using the “total 

number of districts” OR the “number of districts that 

meet the State’s minimum “n” size for one or more 

racial/ethnic group” as the denominator in the 

calculation. 

Targets must be 0%.

Provide detailed information about the timely 

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous APR. If the State did 

not ensure timely correction of the previous 

noncompliance, provide information on the extent to 

which noncompliance was subsequently corrected 

(more than one year after identification). In addition, 

provide information regarding the nature of any 

continuing noncompliance, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.) and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.

10. Percent of districts with disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups 

in specific disability categories that is the 

result of inappropriate identification.

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618 (Report of 

Children with Disabilities Receiving Special 

Education Under Part B of the Individuals with 

Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for 

children aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA. 

Provide these data at a minimum for children in the 

following six disability categories: mental retardation, 

specific learning disabilities, emotional disturbance, 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 10

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

(21 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C)) Disabilities Education Act, As Amended) and the 

State’s analysis to determine if the disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific 

disability categories was the result of inappropriate 

identification.

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of districts with disproportionate 

representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific 

disability categories that is the result of inappropriate 

identification) divided by the (# of districts in the 

State)] times 100.

Include State’s definition of “disproportionate 

representation.”

Based on its review of the 618 data for FFY 2013, 

describe how the State made its annual 

determination that the disproportionate 

overrepresentation it identified of racial and ethnic 

groups in specific disability categories was the result 

of inappropriate identification as required by 

§§300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using 

monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices and 

procedures, etc. In determining disproportionate 

representation, analyze data, for each district, for all 

racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial 

and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum 

'n' size set by the State. Report on the percent of 

districts in which disproportionate representation of 

racial and ethnic groups in specific disability 

categories is the result of inappropriate identification, 

even if the determination of inappropriate 

identification was made after the end of the FFY 

2013, i.e., after June 30, 2014. If inappropriate 

identification is identified, report on corrective actions 

taken.

speech or language impairments, other health 

impairments, and autism. If a State has identified 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic 

groups in specific disability categories other than 

these six disability categories, the State must include 

these data and report on whether the State 

determined that the disproportionate representation 

of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability 

categories was the result of inappropriate 

identification.

States are not required to report on 

underrepresentation.

Provide the number of districts identified with 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic 

groups in specific disability categories and the 

number of districts identified with disproportionate 

representation that is the result of inappropriate 

identification. If the State used a minimum “n” size 

requirement, report the number of districts totally 

excluded from the calculation as a result of this 

requirement because the district did not meet the 

minimum “n” size for any racial/ethnic group. States 

have the option of using the “total number of districts” 

OR the “number of districts that meet the State’s 

minimum n size for one or more racial/ethnic group” 

as the denominator in the calculation. 

Consider using multiple methods in calculating 

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic 

groups to reduce the risk of overlooking potential 

problems. Describe the method(s) used to calculate 

disproportionate representation.

Targets must be 0%.

Provide detailed information about the timely 

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous APR. If the State did 

not ensure timely correction of the previous 

noncompliance, provide information on the extent to 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 11

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

which noncompliance was subsequently corrected 

(more than one year after identification). In addition, 

provide information regarding the nature of any 

continuing noncompliance, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.) and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.

Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B 

Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find

11. Percent of children who were evaluated 

within 60 days of receiving parental 

consent for initial evaluation or, if the State 

establishes a timeframe within which the 

evaluation must be conducted, within that 

timeframe.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Data Source:

Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data 

system and must be based on actual, not an 

average, number of days. Indicate if the State has 

established a timeline and, if so, what is the State’s 

timeline for initial evaluations.

Measurement:

a. # of children for whom parental consent to 

evaluate was received.

b. # of children whose evaluations were completed 

within 60 days (or State-established timeline).

Account for children included in (a), but not included 

in b. Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline 

when the evaluation was completed and any reasons 

for the delays.

Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.

If data are from State monitoring, describe the 

method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data 

are from a State database, include data for the entire 

reporting year. 

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target. Describe the method used 

to collect these data, and if data are from the State’s 

monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect 

these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the 

calculation.

Note that under 34 CFR §300.301(d), the timeframe 

set for initial evaluation does not apply to a public 

agency if: (1) The parent of a child repeatedly fails or 

refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or (2) 

A child enrolls in a school of another public agency 

after the timeframe for initial evaluations has begun, 

and prior to a determination by the child’s previous 

public agency as to whether the child is a child with a 

disability. States should not report these exceptions 

in either the numerator (b) or denominator (a). If the 

State-established timeframe provides for exceptions 

through State regulation or policy, describe cases 

falling within those exceptions and include in b.

Targets must be 100%.

Provide detailed information about the timely 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 12

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous APR. If the State did 

not ensure timely correction of the previous 

noncompliance, provide information on the extent to 

which noncompliance was subsequently corrected 

(more than one year after identification). In addition, 

provide information regarding the nature of any 

continuing noncompliance, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.) and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.

Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition

12. Percent of children referred by Part C 

prior to age 3, who are found eligible for 

Part B, and who have an IEP developed 

and implemented by their third birthdays.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Data Source:

Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data 

system.

Measurement:

a. # of children who have been served in Part C and 

referred to Part B for Part B eligibility 

determination.

b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible 

and whose eligibility was determined prior to their 

third birthdays.

c. # of those found eligible who have an IEP 

developed and implemented by their third 

birthdays.

d. # of children for whom parent refusal to provide 

consent caused delays in evaluation or initial 

services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR 

§300.301(d) applied.

e. # of children determined to be eligible for early 

intervention services under Part C less than 90

days before their third birthdays.

Account for children included in (a), but not included 

in b, c, d, or e. Indicate the range of days beyond the 

third birthday when eligibility was determined and the 

If data are from State monitoring, describe the 

method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data 

are from a State database, include data for the entire 

reporting year. 

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target. Describe the method used 

to collect these data and if data are from the State’s 

monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect 

these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the 

calculation. 

Targets must be 100%.

Provide detailed information about the timely 

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous APR. If the State did 

not ensure timely correction of the previous 

noncompliance, provide information on the extent to 

which noncompliance was subsequently corrected 

(more than one year after identification). In addition, 

provide information regarding the nature of any 

continuing noncompliance, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.) and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 13

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

IEP developed, and the reasons for the delays.

Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e)] times 100.

13. Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and 

above with an IEP that includes 

appropriate measurable postsecondary 

goals that are annually updated and based 

upon an age appropriate transition 

assessment, transition services, including 

courses of study, that will reasonably 

enable the student to meet those 

postsecondary goals, and annual IEP 

goals related to the student’s transition 

services needs. There also must be 

evidence that the student was invited to 

the IEP Team meeting where transition 

services are to be discussed and evidence 

that, if appropriate, a representative of any 

participating agency was invited to the IEP 

Team meeting with the prior consent of 

the parent or student who has reached the 

age of majority.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

Data Source:

Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data 

system.

Measurement:

Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above 

with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable 

postsecondary goals that are annually updated and 

based upon an age appropriate transition 

assessment, transition services, including courses of 

study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet 

those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals 

related to the student’s transition services needs. 

There also must be evidence that the student was 

invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition 

services are to be discussed and evidence that, if 

appropriate, a representative of any participating 

agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the 

prior consent of the parent or student who has 

reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of 

youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.

If data are from State monitoring, describe the 

method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data 

are from a State database, include data for the entire 

reporting year. 

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target. Describe the method used 

to collect these data and if data are from the State’s 

monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect 

these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the 

calculation.

Targets must be 100%.

Provide detailed information about the timely 

correction of noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s 

response table for the previous APR. If the State did 

not ensure timely correction of the previous 

noncompliance, provide information on the extent to 

which noncompliance was subsequently corrected 

(more than one year after identification). In addition, 

provide information regarding the nature of any 

continuing noncompliance, improvement activities 

completed (e.g., review of policies and procedures, 

technical assistance, training, etc.) and any 

enforcement actions that were taken.

14. Percent of youth 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.

C. Enrolled in higher education or in some 

Data Source:

State selected data source.

Measurement:

A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth 

who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in 

effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in 

higher education within one year of leaving high 

school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who 

are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in 

Sampling of youth who had IEPs and are no 

longer in secondary school is allowed. When 

sampling is used, submit a description of the 

sampling methodology outlining how the design will 

yield valid and reliable estimates of the target 

population. (See General Instructions on page 2 for 

additional instructions on sampling.)

Collect data by September 2014 on students who left 

school during 2012-2013, timing the data collection 

so that at least one year has passed since the 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 14

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

other postsecondary education or training 

program; or competitively employed or in 

some other employment within one year of 

leaving high school.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))

effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

B. Percent enrolled in higher education or 

competitively employed within one year of leaving 

high school = [(# of youth who are no longer in 

secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they 

left school and were enrolled in higher education or 

competitively employed within one year of leaving 

high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth 

who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs 

in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some

other postsecondary education or training program; 

or competitively employed or in some other 

employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in 

secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they 

left school and were enrolled in higher education, or 

in some other postsecondary education or training 

program; or competitively employed or in some other 

employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth 

who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs 

in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.

students left school. Include students who dropped 

out during 2012-2013 or who were expected to 

return but did not return for the current school year. 

This includes all youth who had an IEP in effect at 

the time they left school, including those who 

graduated with a regular diploma or some other 

credential, dropped out, or aged out. 

I. Definitions

Enrolled in higher education as used in measures A, 

B, and C means youth have been enrolled on a fullor part-time basis in a community college (two year 

program) or college/university (four or more year

program) for at least one complete term, at any time 

in the year since leaving high school.

Competitive employment as used in measures B and 

C means that youth have worked for pay at or above 

the minimum wage in a setting with others who are 

nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at 

least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving 

high school. This includes military employment. 

Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training

as used in measure C, means youth have been 

enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least 1 

complete term at any time in the year since leaving 

high school in an education or training program (e.g., 

Job Corps, adult education, workforce development 

program, vocational technical school which is less 

than a two year program).

Some other employment as used in measure C 

means youth have worked for pay or been selfemployed for a period of at least 90 days at any time 

in the year since leaving high school. This includes 

working in a family business (e.g., farm, store, 

fishing, ranching, catering services, etc.).

II. Data Reporting

Provide the actual numbers for each of the following 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 15

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

mutually exclusive categories. The actual number of 

“leavers” who are:

1. Enrolled in higher education within one year of 

leaving high school;

2. Competitively employed within one year of leaving 

high school (but not enrolled in higher education);

3. Enrolled in some other postsecondary education 

or training program within one year of leaving high 

school (but not enrolled in higher education or 

competitively employed);

4. In some other employment within one year of 

leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher 

education, some other postsecondary education or 

training program, or competitively employed).

“Leavers” should only be counted in one of the 

above categories, and the categories are organized 

hierarchically. So, for example, “leavers” who are 

enrolled in full- or part-time higher education within 

one year of leaving high school should only be 

reported in category 1, even if they also happen to 

be employed. Likewise, “leavers” who are not 

enrolled in either part- or full-time higher education, 

but who are competitively employed, should only be 

reported under category 2, even if they happen to be 

enrolled in some other postsecondary education or 

training program. 

III. Reporting On the Measures/Indicators

Targets must be established for measures A, B, and 

C. 

Measure A: For purposes of reporting on the 

measures/indicators, please note that any youth 

enrolled in an institution of higher education (that 

meets any definition of this term in the Higher 

Education Act (HEA)) within one year of leaving high 

school must be reported under measure A. This 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 16

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

could include youth who also happen to be 

competitively employed, or in some other training 

program; however, the key outcome we are 

interested in here is enrollment in higher education.

Measure B: All youth reported under measure A 

should also be reported under measure B, in 

addition to all youth that obtain competitive 

employment within one year of leaving high school.

Measure C: All youth reported under measures A 

and B should also be reported under measure C, in 

addition to youth that are enrolled in some other 

postsecondary education or training program, or in 

some other employment.

Describe the calculations and results using actual 

numbers and compare these results to the targets. 

Include a description of how the State has ensured 

that survey data are valid and reliable, including how 

the data represent the demographics of the State.

Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision

15. Percent of hearing requests that went to 

resolution sessions that were resolved 

through resolution session settlement 

agreements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618.

Measurement:

Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.

Sampling is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target. 

States are not required to establish baseline or 

targets if the number of resolution sessions is less 

than 10. In a reporting period when the number of 

resolution sessions reaches 10 or greater, develop 

baseline, targets and improvement activities, and 

report on them in the corresponding APR. 

States may express their targets in a range, e.g., 75-

85%.

If the data reported in this indicator are not the same 

as the State’s data under IDEA section 618, explain. 

States are not required to report data at the LEA 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 17

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

Monitoring Priorities and Indicators Data Source and Measurement Instructions for Indicators/Measurement

level.

16. Percent of mediations held that resulted in 

mediation agreements.

(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))

Data Source:

Data collected under IDEA section 618.

Measurement:

Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 

100.

Sampling is not allowed.

Describe the results of the calculations and compare 

the results to the target. 

States are not required to establish baseline or 

targets if the number of mediations is less than 10. 

In a reporting period when the number of mediations 

reaches ten or greater, develop baseline, targets and 

improvement activities, and report on them in the 

corresponding APR.

States may express their targets in a range, e.g., 75-

85%.

If the data reported in this indicator are not the same 

as the State’s data under IDEA section 618, explain. 

States are not required to report data at the LEA 

level.
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 18

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

INDICATOR 17 – STATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN

MONITORING PRIORITY – GENERAL SUPERVISION 

INDICATOR: The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan that meets the requirements 

set forth for this indicator. 

MEASUREMENT: The State’s SPP/APR includes a comprehensive, multi-year State Systemic Improvement 

Plan, focused on improving results for student with disabilities, that includes the following components, as 

further defined below:

Phase I (which the State must include with its 2015 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2013):

a. Data Analysis; 

b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement;

c. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity; and

d. Theory of Action.

Phase II (which, in addition to the Phase 1 content outlined above, the State must include with its 2016 

submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2014):

e. Infrastructure Development; 

f. Support for local educational agency (LEA) Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices; 

and

g. Evaluation Plan.

Phase III (which, in addition to the Phase I and Phase II content outlined above, the State must include with its 

2017 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2015, its 2018 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2016, its 2019 

submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2017, and its 2020 submission of its SPP/APR for FFY 2018):

h. Results of Ongoing Evaluation and Revisions to the SPP. 

The State’s SPP/APR must include a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that is a comprehensive, 

ambitious yet achievable plan for improving results for students with disabilities. The SSIP must be a multi-year 

plan that the State develops in the two phases described below. The basis for this plan is a detailed data and 

infrastructure analysis that will guide the development of the strategies to increase the State’s capacity to 

structure and lead meaningful change in LEAs. In order to improve results, States must assess the capacity of 

their current infrastructure systems 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 student 

outcomes. The data and infrastructure analysis should use multiple data sources, including SPP/APR indicators 

and 618 State-reported data, to identify systemic approaches that will lead to improved results for students with 

disabilities across key measures: performance on assessment, graduation with a regular diploma, and postschool outcomes. While the primary focus of SSIP is on improvement of student outcomes, the State must also 

address in its SSIP how the State will use its general supervision systems to improve implementation of the 

requirements of Part B of the IDEA. 

Phase I must focus on: 1) the collection and analysis of data and other information; and 2) the identification of 

evidence-based practices. Phase II is an implementation plan to: 1) enhance and/or build the State’s 

infrastructure; and 2) support the implementation of evidence-based practices to improve results for students 

with disabilities. 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 19

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

For a suggested format and the evaluation criteria see www.WEBLINK.

Phase I:

The SSIP submitted by States in the FFY 2013 SPP/APR, due February 2, 2015, must include detailed 

descriptions of these four key areas:

a. Data Analysis: A description of how the State identified and analyzed key data, including data from 

SPP/APR indicators, to determine the areas for improvement. The description must include information 

about how the data were disaggregated in order to identify areas for improvement. In addition, the 

description must include any concerns about the quality of the data and how the State will address this, 

as well as methods and timelines to collect additional data that may be needed to inform areas for 

improvement. As part of its data analysis, the State should determine if there are any compliance 

issues that present barriers to achieving improved results for students with disabilities. 

b. Identification of the Focus for Improvement: A description of improvement strategies on which the 

State will focus, that will lead to a measurable student-based result. The State must include in the 

description how the data analysis led to the identification of the area on which the State will focus. The 

State must demonstrate how addressing this area of focus for improvement will build LEAs’ capacity to 

improve the identified result for students with disabilities. (For example, the State might be working to 

improve performance on reading assessments and the focus of improvement strategies would be 

implementing evidence-based early literacy practices.) 

c. Infrastructure to Support Improvement and Build Capacity: A description of how the State analyzed the 

capacity of its current system to support improvement and build capacity in LEAs to implement, scale 

up, and sustain evidence-based practices to improve results for students with disabilities, and the 

results of this analysis. State system components include: governance, fiscal, quality standards, 

professional development, data, technical assistance, and accountability. The description must include 

the strengths of the system, how components of the system are coordinated, and areas for improvement 

within and across components of the system. The description must also include an analysis of 

initiatives in the State, including initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special 

education, which can have an impact on students with disabilities. The State must include in the 

description how decisions are made within the State system and the representatives (e.g., agencies, 

positions, individuals) that must be involved in planning for systematic improvements in the State 

system.

d. Theory of Action: Based on the data analysis and infrastructure analysis, the State must describe the 

general improvement strategies that will need to be carried out and the outcomes that will need to be 

met to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for students with disabilities. 

The State must include in the description the changes in the State system, LEAs, and school and 

provider practices that must occur to achieve the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for 

students with disabilities. States should consider developing a logic model that shows the relationship 

between the activities and the outcomes that the State expects to achieve over a multi-year period. 

Phase II:

The multi-year plan submitted by the State in the FFY 2014 APR, due no later than February 1, 2016, must, in 

addition to the content described above for Phase I, include the steps needed to implement the SSIP, including 

identification of the improvement strategies, mechanisms and resources for implementing the improvement 

activities, and the timelines for beginning and completing the improvement strategies. Finally, ongoing 

formative evaluation must be addressed so the plan can be adjusted as necessary. In addition to submitting the 

items below, the State may also amend previously-submitted information to improve its accuracy.

e. Infrastructure Development: The SSIP must include a plan to implement needed State system 

improvements to enable the State to build the capacity of LEAs to implement and scale up evidencebased practices to advance the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for students with 

disabilities. The plan must include how the State will align its improvement work with other initiatives in 

the State, including initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special education, and 

leverage resources from these initiatives. The plan must also include improvement activities that will be 

taken, who will implement the activities and the resources that will be used to implement them, how the 

expected outcomes of these activities will be measured, and timelines for completing the activities. 
2015 Part B – SPP /APR 

Part B SPP/APR Part B SPP/APR Indicator/Measurement Table – Page - 20

(OMB NO: 1820-0624 / Expiration Date: )

f. Support for LEA Implementation of Evidence-Based Practices: The SSIP must include a plan to support 

LEAs in identifying and implementing the evidence-based practices that will result in changes in school 

and provider practices to advance the State-identified, measurable improvement in results for students 

with disabilities. The plan must describe how the State will align its support for LEAs with other 

initiatives in the State, including initiatives in general education and other areas beyond special 

education, and leverage resources from these initiatives. The plan must also include activities that will 

be taken, who will implement the activities and the resources that will be used to implement them, how 

the expected outcomes of these activities will be measured, and timelines for completing the activities. 

The State must include in the plan how the State will support LEAs in scaling up and sustaining the 

implementation of the evidence-based practices once they have been implemented with fidelity.

g. Evaluation Plan: A description of how the State will evaluate the implementation of its SSIP. The plan 

must include the methods that the State will use to collect and analyze data related to specific activities 

and outcomes of the SSIP. The description must also include how the State will use the results of the 

evaluation to examine the effectiveness of the implementation of the plan and the progress toward 

achieving intended outcomes, and make modifications to the SSIP as necessary.

Phase III:

The multi-year plan must include the results of its ongoing evaluation of the strategies included in the SSIP, 

including the extent to which the State has implemented them, the extent to which the State has made progress 

toward and/or met the established goals, and any revisions the State has made in the SSIP in response to its 

evaluation.