JUNE 28, 2022: The U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has released the annual IDEA state determinations for 2022. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires ED to annually assign every state a “rating” on its implementation of IDEA, based on the state’s performance on its State Performance Plan (SPP). The 2022 determinations are based on performance for fiscal year 2020. Each state is assigned one of the following ratings: – Meets requirements and purposes of the IDEA Part B – Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B – Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B – Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
The OSEP Fact Sheet on 2022 determinations is here.
The map below shows the 2022 determination for each state.
Beginning in 2014 OSEP began using the “Results-Driven Accountability” (RDA) Matrix to arrive at state determinations. We have spent a great deal of time examining RDA. Our critique of the current RDA process is examined in depth in this report, “Results Driven Accountability Needs Substantial Intervention.” We discuss in detail what’s working and not working after several years of RDA-based state determinations. As the chart below shows, the number of states earning a “Meets Requirements” rating has not improved under RDA. Get ratings by state for 2014 to 2022 here. (PDF, 1 pg)
Here is how to locate information for your state’s 2022 determination: – Go to this page – Locate your state’s 2022 SPP/APR Submission Part B and State Determination Letters PART B – Click and download the MS WORD document of the 2022SPP/APR Submission PART B – Go to the end of the MS WORD document and click on the PDF icon that says “results matrix -2022b.” This document – titled “2022 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix” – provides the scoring for each element of the matrix used to determine the state’s rating.
Over the past few months states have been busy formulating new annual targets for their state performance plans (SPP) for FFY 2020-2025. The new 6 year targets were to be submitted to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Dept. of Education along with states’ SPP Annual Performance Report (APR) on February 1, 2022.
These new targets were to be developed with stakeholder involvement, as this OSEP memo points out. SPP targets are used to annually review states’ performance on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). And, in turn, states use the targets to evaluate IDEA implementation of local school districts. The SPP/APR submissions are currently under review at OSEP – including the new targets for FFY 2020-2025.
Here’s the problem …
Based on information shared with stakeholders in several states (see AR, CO, FL, KY, MD, SD) the data being used to set 6 years of expectations on the participation and performance of students with disabilities on state assessments (known as SPP Indicator 3) are data from the state assessments conducted in the 2020-2021 school year.
This is a BIG problem since the participation and performance of students with disabilities in 2020-2021 was heavily impacted by continued school closures, remote instruction, high absenteeism as well as lack of implementation of students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and a shortage of qualified special education and related services personnel.
So … using data from 2020-2021 to set targets on participation and performance for the next 6 years ensures low expectations. Essentially, the learning loss of students with disabilities will be baked into performance targets for 6 years!
As the U.S. Dept. of Education’s Office for Civil Rights reported in Education in a Pandemic: The Disparate Impacts of COVID-19 on America’s Students, “[f]or many elementary and secondary school students with disabilities, COVID-19 has significantly disrupted the education and related aids and services needed to support their academic progress and prevent regression. And there are signs that those disruptions may be exacerbating longstanding disability-based disparities in academic achievement.”
Now, setting 6 years of annual targets for performance on state assessments in math and reading based on 2020-2021 results will exacerbate the disparate impact of COVID-19.
“While 2021 assessment data can still be a helpful barometer of how well educators and schools supported students’ grade-level learning, it is not appropriate to use these data alone to make inferences about student success or school quality, particularly if such inferences are attached to significant decisions or consequences. To avoid drawing incorrect conclusions from assessment data about student success or school quality, policymakers and education leaders should consider lowering or removing any high stakes attached to 2021 assessment results.”
This Education Week article on results of 2021 testing points out “even though educators are hungry for insight, assessment experts are urging caution. This year, more than any in recent memory, calls for extreme care and restraint when analyzing statewide test scores, drawing conclusions, and taking action, they say.”
And, as this NCIEA article points out, efforts should be made to “minimize the long-term influence of ‘fragile indicators’ such as proficiency rates when forced to use the imperfect assessment data from 2020-2021.”
Allowing states to set SPP targets using 2020-2021 state assessment data is sure to maximize the impact of COVID-19 on students with disabilities for years to come. Buckle up.
States are required to submit an annual application for Federal funds to the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) in order to be eligible to receive their IDEA Part B Federal funds.
States must make their FFY 2022 IDEA Part B applications for Federal funds available to the public at least 60 days prior to submission to ED’s Office of Special Education Programs (due by May 27, 2022 ), accept public comment for at least 30 days, review and consider all public comments and make any necessary modifications to the application or policies and procedures, as appropriate. This means applications should be posted to SEA websites by March 28, 2022.
Through these applications, states must make a number of “assurances” regarding compliance with IDEA including assuring FAPE is available to all identified students, services are provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to the maximum extent practicable, identifying significant disproportionality and many more! States must also provide information on their maintenance of state financial support.
Direct links to states’ applications are provided below.
More information about the annual application is available
in the following documents:
The U.S. Dept. of Education has released new data on students with disabilities (eligible under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA). Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that each state annually submit data about the infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, who receive early intervention services under Part C of IDEA, and children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who receive special education and related services under Part B of IDEA.
The new data – the first since start of the COVID-19 pandemic – shows the number of eligible children in 2020 remained essentially the same as in 2019, ending a steady stream of significant increases over prior years.
Because of a change in the way schools are to report children with disabilities who are 5 years old, the number of students in the 3-5 age range has declined and the number of “school age students” (formerly students ages 6-21) has increased. Beginning in 2020, schools were required to report 5 year olds in kindergarten as School Age Students with Disabilities. The chart below shows the impact of this change.
The percent of the population served continues to vary significantly across states, ranging from a high of 12.98% in Maine to a low of 6.56% in Hawaii
CHANGES IN DISABILITY CATEGORIES
The distribution across disability categories of School Age Students with Disabilities in 2020 remained largely unchanged, with a slight increase in the number of children in the Developmental Delay category which is frequently assigned to students in the early grades. The Autism category continues to grow while other categories such as Specific learning disabilities and Speech/language impairments continue to decline.
NUMBER OF YOUNG CHILDREN DECLINES SIGNIFICANTLY
While the 3-21 group was unchanged, the number of children served under IDEA Part C saw a significant decline. The number of children (birth through age 2) declined by 63,847 or 15% from 2019 and the percent of population served fell from 3.7% to 3.2%. This decline is quite troubling and could reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on very young children including such things as foregoing regular check-ups which could recognize developmental delays.
The percent of the zero to 3 population receiving early intervention services under IDEA Part C varies significantly across states, ranging from a high of 10.45% in Massachusetts to a low of .82% in Hawaii. All but 3 states (DC, SC, WY) reported drop in percent being served. See this table for change by state.
· School Year 2019-20 Part B Assessment · School Year 2020-21 Part B Child Count and Educational Environments · School Year 2019-20 Part B Discipline · School Year 2019-20 Part B Dispute Resolution · School Year 2019-20 Part B Exiting · Federal Fiscal Year 2019/ School Year 2019-20 Maintenance of Effort Reduction and Coordinated Early Intervening Services · School Year 2019-20 Part B Personnel · School Year 2020-21 Part C Child Count and Settings · School Year 2019-20 Part C Dispute Resolution · School Year 2019-20 Part C Exiting
The American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act is the third and, by far the largest, federal law providing money to schools to assist with the impact of COVID-19 – known as the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief or ESSER Fund. See graphic below.
The ARP provides $122.8 billion in ESSER funds. Allocations to states are based on the proportion that each state received under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in the most recent fiscal year. Allocations for each state can be found in this State Allocation Table. Two-thirds of states’ allocations ($81.3 billion) were distributed to the states in late March 2021. The remaining one-third ($40.7 billion) is distributed after submission of a plan that describes how ARP ESSER funds will be used to safely return students to in-person instruction, maximize in-person instruction time, operate schools, and meet the needs of students, and that addresses other requirements of the ARP ESSER Fund. State plans are available here.
States must distribute at least 90 percent of their ESSER allocation to local educational agencies, or LEA also known as school districts. LEAs must spend a certain amount on specific activities as shown in the graphic below.
Each LEA is required to develop its ESSER plan in consultation with stakeholders and post the plan on its website.
Guidance from the U.S. Dept. of Education makes clear that ESSER funds can be used to address the assistive technology needs of students with disabilities. Here are some specifics:
Frequently Asked Questions An LEA may use ESSER funds for the broad range of activities listed in section 18003(d) of the CARES Act, section 313(d) of the CRRSA Act, and section 2001(e) of the ARP Act including – Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) – Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the LEA that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (Check out this WIRED article for recommendations on AT for students with dyslexia)
ESSER funds may also be used for: – Improving the use of technology in the classroom and/or in a remote setting for children with disabilities to enhance learning; – Software/online/virtual programs, screen capture/recording software, online/virtual cultural curriculum/programs, online/virtual tutoring curriculum/programs, learning management systems; • Technology accessories, such as headphones, speakers, laptop cameras; and • Assistive technology devices, such as dedicated communication devices and applications for text-to-speech, graphic organizers, or word prediction. Additional U.S. Dept. of Ed documents with specific mentions of assistive technology for students with disabilities:
As the above document points out, it may be necessary to revise a student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to address new needs arising from lost instruction due to school closures and remote learning. Such a review/revision should include a consideration of the student’s need for assistive technology devices and/or services.
So …go for it, AT, that is! LEAs have several years to expend their ARP funds. Money should not be an issue when considering the need for AT.
In June 2021 the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released the annual IDEA state determinations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires ED to annually assign every state a “rating” on its implementation of IDEA, based on the state’s performance on its State Performance Plan (SPP). The 2021 determinations are based on performance for fiscal year 2019. Each state is assigned one of the following ratings: – Meets requirements and purposes of the IDEA Part B – Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B – Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B – Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
The map below shows the 2021 rating for each state. Based upon these ratings, 60 percent of the nation’s IDEA-eligible students are educated in states that “Need Assistance” in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B.
Here is how to locate information for your state’s 2021 rating: – Go to this page – Locate your state’s 2021 SPP/APR Submission Part B and State Determination Letters PART B – Click and download the MS WORD document of the 2021 SPP/APR Submission PART B – Go to the end of the MS WORD document and click on the PDF icon that says “results matrix -2021b.” This document – titled “2021 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix” – provides the scoring for each element of the matrix used to determine the state’s rating.
Beginning in 2014 OSEP began using the “Results-Driven Accountability” (RDA) Matrix to arrive at states rating. We have spent a great deal of time examining RDA. Our critique of the current RDA process is examined in depth in this report, “Results Driven Accountability Needs Substantial Intervention.” We discuss in detail what’s working and not working after several years of RDA-based state determinations. As the chart below shows, the number of states earning a “Meets Requirements” rating has not improved under RDA. Get ratings by state for 2014 to 2021 here. (PDF, 1 pg)
States are required to report annually to the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) the “4-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (ACGR)” for all students and separately for many student subgroups, including students with disabilities. The 4-Year ACGR for the 2018-2019 school year was released on March 22, 2021.
ABOUT THE ACGR: The ACGR was put into place in 2008 via Federal regulations to help bring uniformity to the way states calculate the high school graduation rate. Reporting began with the 2010-2011 school year. The ACGR was subsequently included in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) passed in 2015. It is also the subject of non-regulatory guidance released by ED in January 2017.
States are to report only those students who graduated with a “regular high school diploma” in four (or fewer) years. ESSA defines a “regular high school diploma” as the “standard high school diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in a State that is fully aligned with the State’s standards.”
The ED guidance makes these important points regarding the ACGR for students with disabilities:
A State may not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma as a regular high school diploma for the purpose of calculating the four-year or extended-year ACGR. (ESEA section 8101(43)(B)). Thus, students who graduate with a credential other than a regular high school diploma, such as a general equivalency diploma, modified diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of attendance, or a diploma based on meeting a student’s IEP goals, may not be counted in the numerator as having earned a regular high school diploma, but must be included in the denominator of the four-year and extended-year ACGR. (A-14, pg 13) A diploma based on meeting IEP goals will not provide a sufficient basis for determining that the student has met a State’s grade-level academic content standards; rather, it will only demonstrate that the student has attained his or her IEP goals during the annual period covered by the IEP. Therefore, a diploma based on attainment of IEP goals, regardless of whether the IEP goals are fully aligned with a State’s grade-level content standards, should not be treated as a regular high school diploma.(A-15, pg.13)
States may count a student with the most significant cognitive disabilities who graduates with a State-defined alternate diploma in the cohort for a four-year ACGR within the time period for which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education under section 612(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)(A-16, pg.13)
However, because the U.S. Congress invalidated the Federal regulations governing accountability under ESSA, some issues regarding the calculation of the ACGR remain unsettled. These include:
How states determine who is a “student with a disability” for
inclusion in the subgroup. Therefore, states may be determining who is
included in a variety of ways (started the cohort with an IEP, exited
the cohort with an IEP, etc.) This lack of clarity impacts the
comparability of the ACGR for students with disabilities across states.
How states count students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities who graduate with a State-defined alternate diploma in the
four-year and extended-year ACGR. Therefore, states may be using
different methodologies for this purpose.
In comparing ACGRs across states, the substantial differences in the requirements for a regular high school diploma used by states must also be taken into consideration. A 2017 report by the National Center on Educational Outcomes examined the diploma options, coursework and exit exam requirements for students with IEPs compared to those without IEPs. A regular high school diploma (as defined by ESSA) does not represent the same knowledge and skills across states nor does it necessarily indicate college and career readiness.
The ACGR plays an important role in the accountability plans that states were required to develop and implement as required by ESSA. States must set long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for the ACGR, including by student subgroups.
While ACGR comparisons across states are difficult due to the issues discussed above, what is worth scrutiny is the GAP between students with disabilities and all students on the 4-year ACGR within each state. The table below provides the GAP for 2018-19 by state. (Keep in mind that the GAP would be larger if it were possible to compare students with disabilities to those without disabilities.) Download the chart (PDF)
The chart below shows the performance of students with disabilities over the nine years since ACGR reporting began. Download the chart (PDF)
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) – the latest version of the Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – turns FIVE YEARS OLD today, December 10, 2020.
The Act states clearly “The purpose of this title is to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational achievement gaps.”
So, five years in, let’s look at how students with disabilities are faring and if the achievement gaps are closing:
PARTICIPATION IN STATE ASSESSMENTS: ESSA brought a new requirement regarding assessment participation – limiting the use of alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards to 1% of all students assessed. Yet many states have requested a waiver to exceed this limit for multiple years. And the U.S. Dept. of Education has abandoned its responsibilities to require states to adhere to Federal regulations and most recently asked states exceeding the limit to submit improvement plans in lieu of formal waiver requests.
Meanwhile, several states fail to meet the ESSA requirement to include at least 95% of students with disabilities in their state academic assessments. Missing the test participation mark is the reason some states received a failing grade in IDEA implementation in 2020.
Significant lack of progress in these important indicators are even more critical when we consider the increase in the number of students identified for special education in recent years. The latest year with data available showed an increase of 185,000 students ages 6-21 (2017-18 to 2018-2019). So many more students are affected by the lack of impact of ESSA.
In June 2020 the U.S. Dept. of Education (ED) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released the annual state determinations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires ED to annually assign every state a “rating” on its implementation of IDEA, based on the state’s performance on its State Performance Plan (SPP). The 2020 determinations are based on performance for fiscal year 2018. Each state is assigned one of the following ratings: – Meets requirements and purposes of the IDEA Part B – Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B – Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B – Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA Part B
The map below shows the 2020 rating for each state.
Here is how to locate information for your state’s 2020 rating: – Go to this page – Locate your state’s 2020 SPP/APR and State Determination Letters PART B – Click and download the MS WORD document of the 2020 SPP/APR Submission PART B – Go to the end of the MS WORD document and click on the PDF icon that says “results matrix 2020 part B.” This document – titled “2020 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix” – provides the scoring for each element of the matrix used to determine the state’s rating.
Now for the value of the “Results-Driven Accountability (RDA) Matrix. We have spent a great deal of time examining RDA. Our critique of the current RDA process, introduced in 2014, is examined in depth in this report, “Results Driven Accountability Needs Substantial Intervention.” We discuss in detail what’s working and not working after several years of RDA-based state determinations. As the chart below shows, the number of states earning a “Meets Requirements” rating has not improved under RDA. Get ratings by state from 2014-2020 here. (PDF, 1 pg)
While OSEP announced that it would make substantial changes to the RDA determinations process in the determination letters sent to states back in 2019 (see note below), ultimately the same process was used to make the 2020 determinations.
We continue to hope for substantial changes to RDA – changes that would result in improved outcomes for students with disabilities.
NB: The 2019 determination letters included this notice:
“The
Secretary is considering modifying the factors the Department will use in
making its determinations in June 2020 as part of its continuing emphasis on
results for children with disabilities. Section 616(a)(2) of the IDEA requires
that the primary focus of IDEA monitoring must be on improving educational
results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and
ensuring that States meet the IDEA program requirements, with an emphasis on
those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational
results for children with disabilities.
The proposed Part B determinations process will include the same
compliance factors as in past years, with one addition. For the 2020
determinations, rather than weighting each compliance factor equally, OSEP is
considering assigning greater weight to those compliance factors most directly
related to improving results for children with disabilities. For the 2020
determinations process we are also considering, as two additional results
factors, State-reported data on: preschool child outcomes and the State
Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP). Using preschool outcomes for Part B
determinations is consistent with the use of the early childhood outcomes
factor that has been used for Part C determinations since 2015. Use of this
factor emphasizes the importance of preschool outcomes in promoting later
school success for students with disabilities. The inclusion of the SSIP as a
results factor in making determinations would continue OSEP’s emphasis on
incorporating a results-driven approach as States identify evidence-based
practices that lead to improved outcomes for children and youth with
disabilities. In addition, we are considering several changes to the results
factors related to the participation and performance of children with
disabilities on assessments, including: (1) using Statewide assessment results,
rather than the NAEP performance data; (2) looking at year-to-year improvements
in Statewide assessment results and taking into account the full Statewide
assessment system, including alternate assessments; and (3) no longer comparing
each State’s assessment performance with that of other States. Finally, OSEP
will be revisiting ways of measuring improvement in the graduation rate of
students with disabilities. As we consider changes to how we use the data under
these factors in making the Department’s 2020 determinations, OSEP will provide
parents, States, entities, LEAs, and other stakeholders with an opportunity to
comment and provide input through OSEP’s Leadership Conference in July 2019 and
other meetings.”
