South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series · South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #4: State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) ... Data includes any student

Topics in General Supervision

South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #4: State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Thursday, January 9, 2020 | 3:00-4:30 pm CST

Table of Contents

Agenda 2

Webinar PowerPoint 4

Part B IDEA Indicators 88

2019 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA 89

Part B Data Display 93

South Dakota 2019 Part B Results 106

Topics in General Supervision

South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series Webinar #4: State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Thursday, January 9, 2020 | 3:00-4:30 PM

Purpose of the Webinar Series:

The South Dakota Department of Education (SD DOE), Special Education Programs, is providing a series

of webinars for Local Education Agency (LEA) Special Education Directors with information on selected

components of general supervision.

Outcomes:

By participating in this webinar, participants will:

Identify and understand the purpose of the SPP/APR as a general supervision responsibility of

the State Education Agency (SEA);

Know the specific federal and State regulations regarding the SPP/APR;

Understand the importance of the SPP/APR and how the South Dakota Department of Education

uses it.

Understand the application of the SPP/APR at the school district level.

Co-Facilitators:

Wendy Trujillo, Assistant Director of Special Education, SD Department of Education

Mark Gabrylczyk, Program Specialist, Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education (TAESE)

AGENDA

I. Getting Started! Wendy/Mark

Briefly review the webinar series: Components of General Supervision

Future webinar topics and dates

Today’s Focus: The State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report

Agenda

II. The Federal Perspective: State Performance Plan (SPP) Mark

IDEA 2004 Reauthorization and the SPP/APR

o Applicable Federal IDEA Regulations

o What is the State Performance Plan? Big Picture

Familiarity Poll

Section 616 Language

o Requirements and Functions of the State Performance Plan

Data Collection and Annual Reporting – 17 Indicators

Compliance Indicators vs. Results Indicators

Levels of Determination

III. The State Perspective Wendy and SD DOE Staff

Overview of Indicators and data collection

Connecting the SPP to District Efforts Throughout the Year

South Dakota’s State Determination

Making District Determinations

Correction of Non-Compliance/Enforcement

IV. Q&A on the State Perspective

V. Summary and Next Steps Mark

Stay tuned for the final webinar in the General Supervision series – Fiscal/Budget Topics

in General Supervision, February 6, 2020!

Webinar evaluation via Survey Monkey

Thanks for Participating!

PLEASE COMPLETE THE SURVEY

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VQHBKRD

Technical Assistance for Excellence in Special Education

South Dakota LEA Director Webinar Series

Webinar #4: State Performance

Plan and Annual Performance

Report (SPP/APR)

January 9, 2020

• Identify the components of the general supervision system;

• Provide an overview of regulations related to selected general supervision topics to LEA Directors;

• Provide an opportunity for Q&A on the specific topics in general supervision.

Purpose of the Webinar Series

October 9, 2019 Accountability/RDA

November 14, 2019 Child Count

December 12, 2019 Dispute Resolution

January 9, 2020 SPP/APR

February 6, 2020 Budget/Fiscal

Webinar Schedule

• Agenda

• PPT Handout

• Part B Indicator List

• 2019 Determinations Fact Sheet

• Making the Connections Across Indicators-IDC, 2016

• South Dakota Results Matrix-2019

• South Dakota Data Display- 2019

Materials and Resources

Participants will:

• Identify SPP/APR as a general supervision

responsibility of the SEA.

• Be familiar with the specific Federal and State

regulations on the SPP/APR.

• Understand the importance of the SPP/APR and

how it is used at the national level and in South

Dakota.

• Gain better understanding of the application of the

SPP/APR at the school district level.

Outcomes for Today

What is the SPP/APR?

Interactive Poll

In

Interactive Poll

Big Picture!

IDEA Part B—Reauthorization 2004

• Sec. 611 AUTHORIZATION; ALLOTMENT; USE OF FUNDS; AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

• Sec. 612 STATE ELIGIBILITY.

• Sec. 613 LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ELIGIBILITY.

• Sec. 614 EVALUATIONS, ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATIONS, INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS, AND EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENTS.

• Sec. 615 PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS.

• Sec. 616 MONITORING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT.

• Sec. 617 ADMINISTRATION.

• Sec. 618 PROGRAM INFORMATION.

• Sec. 619 PRESCHOOL GRANTS.34 CFR § 300.149

SPP & State Goals with

Measurable Targets

FiscalManagement

Integrated Onsite & Offsite

Monitoring Activities

Effective Policies &

Procedures

Data on Processes &

Results

Improvement, Correction,

Incentives & Sanctions

Componentsof General

Supervision

Effective Dispute

Resolution

Targeted Technical

Assistance & Professional

Development

Accountability!!!

Section 616 of the 2004 Amendment says,

“The primary focus of Federal and State

monitoring activities:

A. Improving educational results and functional

outcomes for all children with disabilities; and

B. Ensuring that States meet those requirements…with a

particular emphasis on those requirements that are

most closely related to improving educational

results for children with disabilities.”

What It’s All About!


Under Section 616 of the IDEA,

States are required to “…have

in place a performance plan

that evaluates [the state’s]

efforts to implement [IDEA]…”


Requirements of the SPP/APR

Six-year plan that includes:

• Indicators and Targets

• Data collection and report to OSEP

• Public reporting



• SPP/APR must be approved annually

• OSEP’s “Review and Determination”

– Levels of Determination

• State determined by OSEP

• Districts determined by State



– Levels of Determination

• Meets Requirements

• Needs Assistance

• Needs Intervention

• Needs Substantial Intervention

Indicators

SOUTH DAKOTA

STATE PERFORMANCE PLAN (SPP)NEW SPED DIRECTOR WEBINAR

COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY doe.sd.gov

January 9, 2020

SPP OVERVIEW

The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) of 2004 requires all states to have in

place a State Performance Plan (SPP) that describes how each state will improve

results for students and comply with the IDEA.

Annual performance reporting progress in meeting targets is submitted each

February. OSEP then reviews the plan and issues a determination in the fall based on

state performance.




South Dakota has a gap between the

graduation rate of students with and

without disabilities.

INDICATOR 1:

GRADUATION

RATE (RESULTS)

Percent of youth with

IEPs graduating from

HS with a regular

diploma in 4 years

Data Source: SIMS (Infinite Campus)

Data includes any student who started 9th grade four years earlier and graduated with a regular high school diploma.

Students who are coded as diploma with requirements modified by the IEP team are not counted in the graduation cohort

Collection Method: Information is collected through SIMS/Campus utilizing the enrollment tab. It is the ESEA graduation calculation.

Collection Dates: Student who started 9th grade four years earlier and how many graduated with regular diploma in 4 years

Data Submission Date: Second Friday in June


GRADUATION RATE CALCULATION

A ÷ (B+C-D-E) x 100

A= Students with IEPs (SWD) in grades 9-12

who graduated in 4 years (cohort).

B= 9th grade SWD (cohort)*

C= SWD who transferred into cohort

D= SWD who transferred out of cohort

E= SWD who emigrated or died

* original cohort includes graduates, dropped, and

served until age 21


INDICATOR 2:

DROPOUT RATE (RESULTS)

Challenge: Students with disabilities have a higher dropout rate than their nondisabled peers.

Goal: Decrease the dropout rate of student with disabilities.


INDICATOR 2:DROPOUT RATE (RESULTS)

Percent of student with

IEPs dropping out of HS

Information collected

through Campus (exit

code 07 and 08)

Uses lag year data

(2018-2019 SPP

uses 2017-2018

data)


INDICATOR 2:


How Indicator 2 is Calculated:

A= Students with IEPs ages 4-21 who are enrolled as of Dec. 1 child count and

Dropped out (Exit Code 08) or

Moved Not known to Continue (Exit Code 07).

B= Students with IEPs ages 4-21who are enrolled as of Dec. 1 child count.

A ÷ B × 100 = Dropout %


INDICATOR 2:


Calculation Example for Indicator 2

A ÷ B × 100 = Dropout %

A = 9 students dropped out (Exit Code 08) +

7 students moved not known to continue (Exit Code 07)

B = 290 students with IEPs ages 4-21

16 ÷ 290 X 100 = 5.5%


INDICATOR 2

CONSIDERATIONS

What is the students transition

plan?

Number of suspensions is linked to

student dropout

How can we make

learning more

meaningful?

Use technology to engage students


INDICATOR 3:

STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT (RESULTS)

3B: Participation on Statewide Assessment

3C: Proficiency

Data source: Smarter Balance/MSAA

along with SIMS

Reports: SD STARS and State Report

Card

Collection Dates: Campus student

data updated by 2nd Friday in June and

assessment window

Submission Date: Student Data

finalized in campus by 2nd Friday in June


INDICATOR 3B: PARTICIPATION


A ÷ B x 100 = % Participation

A. # of students with IEPs participating in the assessment

B. # of students with IEPs in grades 3-8 & 11 during the testing window (reading & math calculated separately)

Participation rate is based on all students with IEPs in the district as of May 1 in grade 3-8 & 11.

INDICATOR

3C:

PROFICIENCY

doe.sd.gov

COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY

Proficiency rate is based on all district students with IEPs as of May 1 in grades

3-8 & 11. Reading & math proficiency levels are calculated separately.

(A + B) ÷ C x 100 = %

A. # of students with IEPs scoring proficient or above against grade

level standards.

B. # of student with IEPs scoring proficient

or above against alternative standards.

C. # of students with IEPs who received a

valid proficiency score.

INDICATOR 3:STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT (RESULTS)

Things to think about:

Are students with disabilities

provided appropriate curriculum?

Could LRE placement be affecting

a student’s ELA and math

proficiency?

Are appropriate supports and/or

accommodations being provided?

Are all students with disabilities

being assessed?


INDICATOR 4A

SUSPENSION/EXPULSION (RESULTS)

Challenge:Suspension rates for

students in special

education are twice as high

as students not receiving

special education services

Goal: Lower the

number of students on

an IEP who are

suspended for greater

than 10 days


INDICATOR 4ASUSPENSION/EXPULSION (RESULTS)

Percentage of students

with disabilities with

out of school

suspension greater

than 10 days

Data is collected

through Launchpad-I will

send out a reminder

email in May

Uses lag year data

(2018-2019 SPP uses

2017-2018 data)


INDICATOR 4A:

SUSPENSION/EXPULSION (RESULTS)

How Indicator 4A is CalculatedA= Students with IEPs with out of school suspension or expulsion in the district for greater than 10 school days in the school year

C= District Child Count

(A ÷ C) x 100 = % Suspended

If greater than 5% of the district child count is suspended,

the district is flagged for significant discrepancy.


INDICATOR 4A

SUSPENSION/EXPULSION

Calculation Example 4A

(A ÷ C) x 100 = % Suspended

A = 28 students with IEPs suspended or expelled >10 school days during the year

C = 340 Total SPED Child Count

(28 ÷ 340) x 100 = 8.23% = significant discrepancy (8.23% is above the 5% discrepancy rate allowed so district is flagged)


INDICATOR 4B

SUSPENSION/EXPULSION BY

RACE/ETHNICITY (COMPLIANCE)

Challenge:

Suspension/expulsion rates are higher for students who do not fall under the category of white

Goal:

Lower the number of students on an IEP who are suspended for greater than 10 days


INDICATOR 4BSUSPENSION/EXPULSION BY RACE/ETHNICITY (COMPLIANCE)

Percentage of students with

disabilities with out of school

suspension greater than 10 days

disaggregated by race/ethnicity

Uses same data entered for 4A

Uses lag year data (2018-2019 SPP

uses 2017-2018 data)

Compliance= SD cannot have any

districts flagged (Need 0%)


INDICATOR 4B:



How Indicator 4B is Calculated

B = Students with IEPs per race and ethnic group suspended/ expelled in the

district >10 school days during the school year

C= District Child Count

(B ÷ C) x 100 = % suspended by race/ethnicity

If greater than 5% of the district child count is suspended, the

district is flagged for significant discrepancy.


Calculation Example 4B

(B ÷ C) x 100 = % suspended by race/ethnicity

B =11 Native American Students with IEPs suspended or expelled >10 school days during the year.

C = 340 Total SPED Child Count

(11 ÷ 340) x 100 = 3.23% of Native American students suspended does NOT = significant discrepancy (3.23 % is below the 5% discrepancy rate allowed so district is not flagged)

COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READY

doe.sd.gov

INDICATOR 4B



SUSPENSION TREND

0

50

100

150

200

13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19

Suspension

OSS >10 Series 3


17,000

18,000

19,000

20,000

21,000

22,000

13-14 14-15 15-16 16-17 17-18

Child count

Child count Column1 Column2

INDICATOR 4A AND 4B

CONSIDERATIONS


When students miss instruction they fall further behind

Is there an effective behavior plan in place?

Need to figure out why the behaviors are occurring

Look for alternatives

INDICATOR 5:

LEAST RESTRICTIVE

ENVIRONMENT

AGES 6-21 (RESULTS)

Measurement: Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21:

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.

Indicator Goal: The goal of Indicator 5 is to determine whether students with IEPs are

appropriately placed in the least restrictive educational environment

Indicator Connections: When students with IEPs receive instruction in the least

restrictive environment, they are more likely to demonstrate success on the statewide

assessment (Ind. 3), to effect graduation rate (Ind. 1), and the dropout rate (Ind. 2).


INDICATOR 5:LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENTAGES 6-21 (RESULTS)

Resources Support

Inclusive Environments

IRIS Center:

http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu

SD DOE State Performance Plan

webpage: http://doe.sd.gov/oess/sped-

SPP.aspx

Florida’s Multi Tiered Systems of

Support:

http://www.florida-

rti.org/floridaMTSS/index.htm

http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

http://doe.sd.gov/oess/sped-SPP.aspx

http://www.florida-rti.org/floridaMTSS/index.htm

INDICATOR 6:

LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT

AGES 3-5 (RESULTS)

Measurement: Percent of children ages 3 through 5 years with IEPs attending:

A. Regular early childhood program receiving the majority of special education and related service hours in the regular early childhood program

B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility.


Entering and Accessing Data:

❑ Collection Method: IEP Least Restrictive Environment Placement data is entered into SIMS/Infinite Campus throughout the year.

❑ Collection Dates: Dec. 1st Child Count

❑ Submission Date: Dec. 1st Child Count

Calculation:6A: (A1 + B1) ÷ F x 100 = Percent receiving the majority of services in the regular early childhood program

6B: [(C1 + C2 + C3 + D1 + D2) ÷ F] x 100 = Percent receiving majority of services in a separate class, school, or residential facility

Resources:

SD DOE State Performance Plan webpage: https://doe.sd.gov/sped/SPP.aspx

Decision Tree for Coding Age 3-5 LRE:https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/Coding-LRE.pdf

Interactive B6 Reporting Tool for determining LRE:https://b6tools.ideadata.org/SD

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/SPP.aspx

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/Coding-LRE.pdf

https://b6tools.ideadata.org/SD

INDICATOR 7:

PRESCHOOL OUTCOMES (RESULTS)


Measurement: Percent of children ages 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:

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.

Collection Method: Battelle Developmental Inventory-2 (BDI-2):

❑ The BDI-2 is given to children when they Enter and Exit the Part B 619 Program (3-5).

❑ Entry and exit scores are entered into the online Data Manager for comparison.

❑ Collection Dates: July 1 – June 30

❑ Submission Date: August 1

Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children

who entered the program below age expectations, the

percent who substantially increased their rate of growth

by the time they turned 6 or exited the program.

Summary Statement 2: Percent of children who

were functioning within age expectations by the time

they turned 6 or exited the program.

Resources:


SD DOE Preschool Section 619 webpage:https://doe.sd.gov/sped/Early-Intervention.aspx


https://doe.sd.gov/sped/Early-Intervention.aspx

BATTELLE DEVELOPMENTAL

INVENTORY


❖ If student has a Campus ID, add to the

student’s record in the BDI Data

Manager.

❖ Select appropriate Program Note for

assessment.

What’s Coming❖ The BDI-3 will be release June 2020.

❖ DOE Special Education Programs will keep all districts updated on state plan

for transitioning.

https://www.bdi2datamanager.com/

https://www.bdi2datamanager.com/

INDICATOR 8:

PARENT SURVEYS (RESULTS)


INDICATOR 8:

PARENT SURVEYS (RESULTS)


A/B*100= % of parents responded positively

• A= # of respondent parents of students with IEPs reporting that districts facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for their child with an IEP.

• B=Total number of respondent parents of students with IEPs

Submission Timeline – Surveys may be distributed throughout the school year prior to April 30. Paper surveys must be postmarked and online surveys submitted by May 31

INDICATOR 8:

PARENT

SURVEYS

(RESULTS)

Things to think about:

Indicator 8 isn’t about the number of surveys

that were sent in but rather how the parents

responded to the survey.

The response rate is very important to

determine an accurate reflection of the

satisfaction of parents of students on IEPs in

an individual district.

Creating appropriate distribution and

completion strategies is critical so that the

district is more able to make improvement

strategies based on measurable data.


INDICATOR 9

AND 10

It is about ensuring that all our students are

supported and appropriately identified in special

education

INDICATOR 9 & 10 (COMPLIANCE)

Indicator 9 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.

Includes all students on an IEP by race/ethnic group.

Indicator 10 Measurement: Percent of districts with

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific

disability categories that is the result of inappropriate identification.

Includes disability categories: Specific Learning Disability,

Cognitive Disability, Emotional Disturbance,

Autism Spectrum Disorder, Other Health Impaired,

Speech

INDICATOR 9 & 10

Step 1: Risk

Total number of students with IEPs in race/ethnic group divided by total number of enrolled in race/ethnic group

Step 2: Weighted risk ratio*

Risk of a specific race/ethnic group divided by risk of other groups

A Weighted Risk Ratio is determined only if there are 20 or more students in the group of interest (based on child count data) and if there are also 20 or more students in the comparison group.

IND 9 AND 10 CONSIDERATIONS

Review policy and procedures followed same way for all students.

Is there a higher percentage identified then others?

Does staff (classroom and special education staff) have training in correctly identification of the disability category?

What type of interventions and data does the district collect?

Has there been staff training on regarding different learning patterns including cultural?

INDICATOR 11:INITIAL EVALUATIONS (COMPLIANCE)

doe.sd.gov

Measurement: Percent of children who were evaluated within the 25-school day timeline from receiving parental consent to evaluate.

District evaluation timeline records and/or dates are collected throughout the school year. Resources:

SD DOE State Performance Plan webpage: http://doe.sd.gov/sped/SPP.aspx

Launchpad Submission Guide:https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/Launchpad.docx

Collection Method:

❑ Launchpad Secure website


❑ Submission Date: August 1

https://apps.sd.gov/DP42LaunchPad/Logon.aspx

http://doe.sd.gov/sped/SPP.aspx

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/Launchpad.docx



Since Indicator 11 is a compliance indicator, districts must meet the 100% target to be considered compliant.

If the district does not meet the target, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is given to the district.

If the 25-school day timeline is exceeded and parent gave permission to extend the timeline, the district will not be found out of compliance.

Calculation:

A = # of students for whom parental consent was received

B = # of students whose evaluations were completed within 25-school days

C = % of initial evaluations completed within 25-school days

(B ÷ A) x 100 = C % of initial evaluations met timeline

INDICATOR 11:CALCULATION AND COMPLIANCE

INDICATOR 12:TRANSITION PART C TO B (COMPLIANCE)

doe.sd.gov

Measurement: 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 birthday:

Part B Special Education programs verifies district submission with the Part C exit data report.

District evaluation timeline records and/or dates are collected throughout the school year.

Collection Method:

❑ Launchpad Secure website


❑ Submission Date: September 1

• Launchpad submission and sign off can be completed anytime between May 1 through August 31.

• District calendars must be uploaded and include snow days/makeup days.

• If using a PK calendar instead of the district one, it must be uploaded with preschool days indicated.

Resources:


SD DOE Preschool Section 619 webpage:https://doe.sd.gov/sped/Early-Intervention.aspx

Launchpad Submission Guide:https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/Launchpad.doc



https://doe.sd.gov/sped/Early-Intervention.aspx

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/documents/Launchpad.doc



Since Indicator 12 is a compliance indicator, districts must meet the 100% target to be considered compliant.

If the district does not meet the target, a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is given to the district.

It is highly encouraged to begin the process early enough to allow enough time for unforeseen circumstances such as inclement weather, cancelations/no shows, scheduling conflicts, frequent absences, etc.

INDICATOR 12:CALCULATION AND COMPLIANCE

Calculation:

A = # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for eligibility determination.

B = # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibilities were 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 refusals to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 CFR 300.301(d) applied.

E = # of children who were referred to Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.

[C ÷ (A – B – D – E)] x 100 = %

INDICATOR 13:

SECONDARY TRANSITION (COMPLIANCE)


Measurement: Percent of youth with IEPs (aged 16 and above) whose IEP 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 needs.

Districts must document:

• evidence that the student was invited to the IEP team meeting where transition services were discussed

• when appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP team meeting

INDICATOR 13:

SECONDARY TRANSITION (COMPLIANCE)

Calculation Guide

(A ÷ B) x 100 = % of the IEPs reviewed by the onsite review team met compliance.

A= # of students with IEPs age 16 and above whose IEP includes an appropriate transition plan that meets the indicator 13 checklist

B= # of students with an IEP age 16 and above

Submission Timeline

Review Team examines transition IEPs during the SPED on-site accountability review.

The submission date is the date of the on-site accountability review

4-year cycle for district reviews


INDICATOR 13:

SECONDARY

TRANSITION

(COMPLIANCE)

Things to think about

Do you work with your regional TSLP prior to the onsite visit?

Do you know who your TSLP regional representative is?

www.tslp.org

Have you seen or do you know where to find a copy of the Ind. 13 checklist?

Are you aware of the TA Guide for Transition in the IEP?

Are you working with outside agencies (when appropriate)?


http://www.tslp.org/

INDICATOR 14:POST SCHOOL OUTCOMES


INDICATOR 14:POST-SCHOOL OUTCOMES (RESULTS)

Measurement: Percent of youth who are no longer in

high school, had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)

in effect at the time they left school, and were:

A. Enrolled in higher education, or:

B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed, or:

C. Enrolled in higher education, other postsecondary

education or training program, competitively employed, or

in other employment: within one year of leaving high school.


INDICATOR 14:

POST-SCHOOL OUTCOMES (RESULTS)

14A. (A ÷ B) x 100 = % in higher ed.

14B. [(A + C) ÷ B] x 100 = % in higher ed. and competitively employed

14C. [(A + C + D + E) ÷ B] x 100 = % in higher ed., some other post sec. ed. or training program., competitively employed, or other employment

A= # of exiter respondents enrolled in higher education

B= total # of exiter respondents

C= # of exiter respondents competitively employed

D= # of exiter respondents enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program

E= # of exiter respondents in some other employment

* All respondents are surveyed one year after exiting high school.


INDICATOR 14:

POST-SCHOOL OUTCOMES (RESULTS)

Part 1: After students exit high school (graduates, ages out, drops out)

1. April-June - Districts may enter demographic data and exiter information of any exiters from Campus in Appendix A in Launchpad.

OR

August-September - DOE will upload demographic data of all exiters from Campus, then districts will enter the IEP information in Launchpad.

2. Deadline: Oct. 1

Part 2: One year after students exit high school

Black Hills State University will collect post-school outcomes data in April-September

Mail out the surveys

Call the students


INDICATOR 14:POST-SCHOOL OUTCOMES (RESULTS)

Things to think about

Response rates are dropping

Are student aware they will be called the following year?

Do they know what will be asked?

https://www.sdposthighsurvey.org/

The student responses help guide program changes

(enhancements)

Lets the district know what they are doing well

Is the district willing to help make the survey calls the

year after graduation? (Just contact the SD Office of

Special Education)

COLLEGE, CAREER, LIFE READYdoe.s

d.gov

https://www.sdposthighsurvey.org/

INDICATOR 15 HEARING REQUESTS RESOLVED (RESULTS)

Measurement: Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.

Data Collection: IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey completed by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator who tracks all due process hearing requests and resolution session results.

Number of resolution sessions

Number of resolution sessions resolved through settlement agreements

Data is not reported on at the

Targets: The state is not required to set targets for this indicator if resolution sessions are under 10.


INDICATOR 16 MEDIATION AGREEMENTS (RESULTS)

Measurement: Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.

Data Collection: IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Survey completed by the Dispute Resolution Coordinator who tracks all due process hearing requests and resolution session results.

Number of mediations held

Mediation agreements related to due process hearings

Mediation agreements not related to due process hearings

Targets: The state does not have to set targets for either indicator if resolution sessions are under 10.


INDICATOR 17: SSIPSTATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN

The State’s SPP/APR includes an SSIP that is a comprehensive,

ambitious, yet achievable multi-year plan for improving results for

children with disabilities.

INDICATOR 17: SSIPSTATE SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT PLAN

Based on stakeholder input and feedback, South Dakota identified reading proficiency among students with learning disabilities entering grade four as the main focus for the SSIP.

General Education and Special Education Initiative

Pilot Program through 2020.

2019-2020 - alignment with SD SPDG (State Personnel Development Grant).

85% of teachers stated they felt highly-skilled in their ability to determine which

students need intensive interventions.

82% of teachers stated they felt highly-skilled in their ability to determine which

students need strategic interventions.

81% of teachers stated they felt highly-skilled in their ability to select an

intervention for a given student.


SSIP RESULTS – DATA ANALYSIS

SSIP RESULTS– INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

• 90% of teachers stated

that the SSIP grant

positively impacted their

understanding of

foundational reading.

• 82% of teachers stated

that the SSIP grant

positively impacted their

understanding of data

analysis.

SSIP RESULTS

– COLLABORATION

SSIP RESULTS

- FAMILY ENGAGEMENT

SSIP RESULTS

– OVERALL

SSIP -

NEXT STEPS

2019-2020 – Sustainability and Support

All pilot districts invited to attend SPDG trainings

Explicit Instruction

Coaching

Data-Driven Instruction (SPDG Data Workbook)

Sustainability Grant

Supports for district efforts to develop plans to sustain best practices.

Family Engagement

Literacy (Instructional Practices)

Data

Collaboration

SOUTH DAKOTA DETERMINATIONS

South Dakota Determination Criteria

Determination is based on the required components by the United States Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) which includes:

Compliance Indicators 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and compliance reviews

Valid, Reliable, and Timely Data

Uncorrected Non-Compliance

Any Audit Findings

OSEP has allowed State Education Agencies to have a performance of 95% to 100% to meet the Compliance Indicator criteria for Levels of Determination

Districts are still required to meet the annual compliance targets of 100% for indicators 11, 12, 13 and 0% for indicators 9 and 10. Any local program within the range of 95-99.9% still needs to correct those few issues and work to 100%.



Levels of Determination

State Education Agencies must place local education agencies (LEA) in a Determination level based on their performance on the State Performance Plan according to Section 616(d) of the IDEA and ARSD:

24:05:20:23.04. State enforcement -- Determinations. On an annual basis, based on local district performance data, information obtained through monitoring visits, and other information available, the department shall determine whether each school district meets the requirements and purposes of Part B of the IDEA.




• Indicator 9

• Indicator 10

• Indicator 11

Areas included in all areas:

• Indicator 12

• Indicator 13

• Accountability review

• Audit findings

Area Definition/Criteria Points

Earned

Compliance Indicators &

Monitoring

Meet 95% to 100% 3

Correction of Non-

Compliance

Completing Corrective Action Plans

within 12 months

2

Meeting Timeline Valid, Reliable, and Timely Data 1

Total Points a District can earn 42 Points


Determination Level Maximum Points

Earned

Minimum Points

Earned

Meets Requirements 42 36

Needs Assistance 35 30

Needs Intervention 29 22

Needs Substantial

Intervention

21 0


SPP RESOURCES

DOE Special Programs SPP-APR website


Reports

TA Guides

Collection Calendar

Indicator webinars

Sped Contact Card for each indicator

Sped Director Calls

https://doe.sd.gov/sped/directors.aspx

February call we will go over FFY19 SPP reported to OSEP



https://doe.sd.gov/sped/directors.aspx

• What questions do you have for the South

Dakota Department of Education on the

topic of SPP/APR?

Post Poll

Q&A on South Dakota’s SPP/APR

• Familiarize yourself with the appropriate

regulations.

• Be aware of what the state SPP/APR

looks like and how your district contributes

to it.

• Be familiar with resources available.

• Be proactive!

Summary and Next Steps

Webinar Evaluation Link:


Thanks in advance for taking a few moments

to complete!

Webinar Evaluation


Keep the main thing

the main thing!

Annual Performance Report

1. Graduation—Percent of youth with IEPs graduating with regular diploma (R)

2. Dropout—Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out (R)

3. Assessments—Participation and performance (R)

4. Suspension/Expulsion—Suspension/expulsion rates (R, C)

5. LRE—Percent of children age 6–21 removed from regular class, served in public/private separate

school, residential, homebound, or hospital (R)

6. Preschool LRE—Percent of preschool children with IEPs in settings with typically developing

peers (R)

7. Preschool Outcomes—Percent of preschool children with improved positive social-emotional

skills; acquisition and use of knowledge and skills; and use of appropriate behaviors (R)

8. Parent Involvement—Percent of parents with child receiving special education services who

report schools facilitated parent involvement (R)

9. Disproportionate Representation—Percent of districts with disproportionality due to

inappropriate ID (C)

10. Disproportionate Representation—Disability Category—Percent of districts with racial and

ethnic disproportionality in specific disability categories as a result of inappropriate ID (C)

11. Evaluation Timelines—Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of parental

consent (C)

12. Preschool Transition—Percent of children referred by Part C, found eligible and have an IEP

developed by their third birthday (C)

13. Secondary Transition—Percent of youth age 16+ with IEP with measurable, annual IEP goals and

transition services (C)

14. Post-School Outcomes—Percent of youth who had IEPs; are no longer in secondary school; and

who have been employed, enrolled in postsecondary school, or both, within one year of leaving

high school (R)

15. Resolution Sessions—Percent of hearing requests resolved through resolution agreements (R)

16. Mediation—Percent of mediations resulting in mediation agreements (R)

17. State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)—The SSIP is a comprehensive multiyear plan that

focuses on improving results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities. (R)

Part B IDEA Indicators

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON

STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF

IDEA Modified July 11, 2019

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

released State determinations on implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act (IDEA) for Part B and Part C for fiscal year 2017. The 2004 Amendments to the IDEA

require each State to develop a State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report

(APR) that evaluates the State’s efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of the

IDEA, and describes how the State will improve its implementation. The Part B SPP/APR and

Part C SPP/APR include Indicators that measure child and family results, and other indicators

that measure compliance with the requirements of the IDEA. Since 2015, the Part B SPP/APR

and Part C SPP/APR have included a State Systemic Improvement Plan through which each

State focuses its efforts on improving a State-selected child or family outcome.

The IDEA also requires each State to report annually to the Secretary on its performance under

the SPP. Specifically, the State must report in its APR, the progress it has made in meeting the

measurable and rigorous targets established in its SPP. The Secretary is required to issue an

annual determination to each State on its progress in meeting the requirements of the statute.

The determinations are part of the ongoing efforts to improve education for America’s 7 million

children with disabilities.

IDEA details four categories for the Secretary’s determinations. A State’s determination may be:

▪ Meets the requirements and purposes of IDEA;

▪ Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of IDEA;

▪ Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA; or

▪ Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements of IDEA.

For the first time in 2014, and again in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, the Department made

Part B determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each equal weight in making

a State’s determination. For the first time in 2015 and again in 2016, 2017 2018, and 2019, the

Department made Part C determinations using both compliance and results data, giving each

equal weight in making a State’s determination. For the first time in 2018, and again in 2019, the

Department made Part B determinations for the outlying areas, freely associated States, and the

Bureau of Indian Education using both compliance and results data, with a 60% weight and 40%

2019 DETERMINATION LETTERS ON STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF IDEA 2

weight respectively. OSEP’s accountability framework, called Results Driven Accountability (RDA),

brings into focus the educational results and functional outcomes for children with disabilities while

balancing those results with the compliance requirements of IDEA. Protecting the rights of

children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of State educational agencies

(SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) for Part B, and Lead Agencies and early

intervention service programs for Part C, but it is not sufficient if children are not attaining the

knowledge and skills necessary to accomplish the ideals of IDEA: equality of opportunity, full

participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.

IDEA identifies specific technical assistance or enforcement actions that the Department must

take under specific circumstances for States that are not determined to “meet requirements.” If a

State “needs assistance” for two consecutive years, the Department must take one or more

enforcement actions, including, among others, requiring the State to access technical

assistance, designating the State as a high-risk grantee, or directing the use of State set-aside

funds to the area(s) where the State needs assistance. If a State “needs intervention” for three

consecutive years, the Department must take one or more enforcement actions, including

among others, requiring a corrective action plan or compliance agreement, or withholding

further payments to the State. Any time a State “needs substantial intervention” the Department

must take immediate enforcement action, such as withholding funds or referring the matter to

the Department’s inspector general or to the Department of Justice.


IDEA PART B DETERMINATIONS

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part B,

which serves students with disabilities, ages 3 through 21:

MEETS REQUIREMENTS

Arizona

Connecticut

Florida

Indiana

Kansas

Kentucky

Maine

Massachusetts

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

North Dakota

Nebraska

New Jersey

Ohio

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Virginia

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (one year)

District of Columbia

Georgia

Republic of the Marshall Islands

Michigan

New Hampshire

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Vermont

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (two or more consecutive years)

Alabama

Alaska

Arkansas

American Samoa

California

Colorado

Delaware

Federated States of Micronesia

Guam

Hawaii

Iowa

Idaho

Illinois

Louisiana

Maryland

Mississippi

New Mexico

Nevada

New York

Oregon

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

South Carolina

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virgin Islands

Washington

NEEDS INTERVENTION (two years)

Palau

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

NEEDS INTERVENTION (eight consecutive years)

Bureau of Indian Education


IDEA PART C DETERMINATIONS

Following is a list of each State’s performance in meeting the requirements of IDEA Part C,

which serves infants and toddlers birth through age 2:

MEETS REQUIREMENTS

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Connecticut

District of Columbia

Georgia

Idaho

Kentucky

Louisiana

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

New York

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

West Virginia

Wyoming

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (one year)

Arkansas

Kansas

Maryland

Maine

Michigan

North Carolina

New Hampshire

North Dakota

New Jersey

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

Tennessee

NEEDS ASSISTANCE (two or more consecutive years)

American Samoa

California

Colorado

Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands

Delaware

Florida

Guam

Hawaii

Iowa

Illinois

Indiana

Massachusetts

Mississippi

Maine

South Carolina

Vermont

Virgin Islands

Part B Data Display: SOUTH DAKOTAPublication Year 2019

Identification of Children with Disabilities

STUDENT ENROLLMENT, AGES 6 THROUGH 21

Student CategoryStateStudents (#)

StateStudents (%)

Nation Students (#)

Nation Students (%)

All students 121,369 45,908,893

Children with disabilities (IDEA) 18,249 15.0 6,130,637 13.4

Explanatory Note: The total number of students enrolled in public schools in the state and nation as of October 1, 2016 (or the closest day to October 1) for all grade levels from grade 1 through grade 12, as well as ungraded. The number and percent of children with disabilities (IDEA) in the state and nation as of the state-designated child count date (between October 1 and December 1, 2017). Children with disabilities (IDEA) are served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and Educational Environments andthe SY 2016-17 Common Core of Data (CCD). National IDEA Child Count and Educational Environments data representthe US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States and the national CCD data represent the US and Outlying Areas.

PERCENT OF POPULATION WHO ARE CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA), AGES 3 THROUGH 21

AgeState (%)SY 2015-16

State (%)SY 2016-17

State (%)SY 2017-18

Nation (%)SY 2017-18

3 through 5 7.3 7.6 8.0 6.4

6 through 21 9.1 9.4 9.7 9.2Explanatory Note: The percent of the population who are children with disabilities (IDEA) in the state and nation asof the state designated special education child count date, for the ages 3 through 5 and 6 through 21. Data reported for IDEA Child Count and Educational Environments and Census. National IDEA Child Count and EducationalEnvironments data represent the US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States and national Census data representthe 50 states and DC (including BIE).

1


PERCENT OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA) BY DISABILITY CATEGORY, AGES 6 THROUGH 21

Disability CategoryPercent of Overall Student EnrollmentState (%)

Percent of Overall Student EnrollmentNation (%)

Autism 1.10 1.34

Deaf-blindness 0.00 0.00

Emotional disturbance 0.98 0.73

Hearing impairment 0.10 0.14

Intellectual disability 1.51 0.91

Multiple disabilities 0.44 0.27

Orthopedic impairment 0.05 0.08

Other health impairment 2.27 2.11

Specific learning disabilities 5.72 5.10

Speech or language impairment 2.79 2.22

Traumatic brain injury 0.04 0.06

Visual impairment 0.04 0.05Explanatory Note: The percent of enrollees who are children with disabilities (IDEA), by disability category, in thestate and nation for the ages 6 through 21 (excluding children reported in the category of developmental delays). For this calculation, the numerator is the number of children with disabilities (IDEA) in a specific disability category as of the state-designated special education child count date (between October 1 and December 1, 2017) for ages 6 through 21 (excluding children reported in the category of developmental delays) and the denominator is the total number of studentsenrolled in public schools as of October 1, 2016 (or the closest school day to October 1) for all grade levels from grade 1through grade 12, as well as ungraded. Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and Educational Environments and SY 2016-17 CCD. National IDEA Child Count data represent the US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States and national CCD data represent US and Outlying Areas.

2


PERCENT OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA) BY DISABILITY CATEGORY, AGES 3 THROUGH 21

Disability Category

CWDs (IDEA),Ages 3-5State (%)

CWDs (IDEA),Ages 3-5Nation (%)

CWDs (IDEA),Ages 6-21State (%)

CWDs (IDEA),Ages 6-21Nation (%)

All disabilities 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Autism 5.9 10.8 7.3 10.3

Deaf-blindness 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Developmental delay* 47.0 37.2

Emotional disturbance 0.2 0.3 6.5 5.6

Hearing impairment 0.6 1.1 0.7 1.1

Intellectual disability 2.8 1.7 10.0 7.0

Multiple disabilities 2.2 1.0 2.9 2.1

Orthopedic impairment 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6

Other health impairment 1.0 3.2 15.1 16.2

Specific learning disabilities 1.6 1.1 38.1 39.2

Speech or language impairment 37.9 42.4 18.6 17.1

Traumatic brain injury 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4

Visual impairment 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4

*Developmental delay is only allowable through age 9, so a 6-21 percent cannot be calculated.Explanatory Note: The percent represents a distribution of children with disabilities (IDEA) by disability category for ages 3 through 5 and 6 through 21 (excluding children reported in the category of developmental delays). For this calculation, the denominator is all children with disabilities (IDEA) for the specified age range, excludingdevelopmental delays for ages 6 through 21. Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and Educational Environments.National data represent the US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States.

Graduation

FOUR-YEAR REGULATORY ADJUSTED COHORT GRADUATION RATECWDs (IDEA) (%) All Students (%)

SY 2016-17 60.00% 83.70%Explanatory Note: The percent of students from the original cohort who graduated in four years with a regular high school diploma. Data reported for Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) purposes.

3


EXITING SPECIAL EDUCATION AND SCHOOL, AGES 14 THROUGH 21

Method of Exiting:

Graduated with a Regular High School Diploma (%)

Received a Certificate (%) Dropped Out (%)

Reached Maximum Age (%)

SY 2016-17 62.2 5.2 23.4 7.9Explanatory Note: The percents were calculated by dividing the number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported in the exit reason category (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, or reached maximum age) for the year by the total number of students ages 14 through 21 served under IDEA, Part B, reported in the five categories that represent exiting from special education and school(i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age forservices, and died) for that year, then multiplying the result by 100. The U.S. Department of Education collects dataon seven categories of exiters from special education (i.e., the Part B program in which the student was enrolled at the start of the reporting period). The categories include five categories of exiters from both special education and school (i.e., graduated with a regular high school diploma, received a certificate, dropped out, reached maximum age for services, and died) and two categories of exiters from special education, but not school (i.e., transferred to regular education and moved, known to be continuing in education). The seven categories are mutually exclusive. Students with disabilities reported in the graduated with a regular high school diploma category represent students who exited an educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities are eligible. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students withoutdisabilities. As defined in 34 CFR 300.102(a)(3)(iv), “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the state’s academic standards, such as a certificate or GED.” The percents of students who exited special education and school by graduating as required underIDEA and included in this report are not comparable to the graduation rates required for reporting in CSPR. The data used to calculate percents of students who exited special education and school by graduating or dropping outare different from those used to calculate other graduation and dropout rates. In particular, states often use data such as the number of students who graduated in four years with a regular high school diploma and the number of students who entered high school four years earlier to determine their graduation rates for the CSPR. These exiting data are from the reporting period between July 1, 2016 and June 30, 2017. Data reported for IDEA 2016-17 Exiting.

4


Educational Environment

EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS, AGES 3 THROUGH 5

Disability Category

CWDs Attending and Receiving the Majority of Special Education and Related Services in a Regular Early Childhood ProgramState (%)

CWDs Attending and Receiving the Majority of Special Education and Related Services in a Regular Early Childhood Program Nation (%)

CWDs Attending a Separate Special Education Class, Separate School, or Residential Facility State (%)

CWDs Attending a Separate Special Education Class, Separate School, or Residential Facility Nation (%)

All disabilities 24.2 44.9 14.5 25.2

Autism 30.6 34.3 38.2 47.1

Deaf-blindness 0.0 33.2 0.0 47.6

Developmental delay 30.7 46.5 16.7 34.0

Emotional disturbance 33.3 46.7 50.0 19.2

Hearing impairment 5.6 38.2 16.7 39.7

Intellectual disability 19.8 32.0 14.8 41.2

Multiple disabilities 18.8 25.8 42.2 49.2

Orthopedic impairment 33.3 44.2 8.3 32.9

Other health impairment 41.4 47.9 10.3 27.9

Specific learning disabilities 44.7 49.8 6.4 9.0

Speech or language impairment 14.6 46.9 6.5 10.3

Traumatic brain injury 33.3 40.9 33.3 37.2

Visual impairment 28.6 47.5 14.3 29.9Explanatory Note: The percent of children with disabilities (IDEA) in the state and nation by disability category attending and receiving the majority of special education and related services in a regular early childhood program, or a separate special education class, separate school, or residential facility.Note that this table does not include all reported preschool educational environment categories.The denominator is all children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 3 through 5, in a specified disability category. Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and Educational Environments. National data represent the US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States.

5


EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENTS, AGES 6 THROUGH 21Percent of Time Spent Inside the Regular Classroom

Disability Category

≥ 80% of DayState (%)

≥ 80% of DayNation (%)

40 to 79% of Day State (%)

40 to 79% of Day Nation (%)

< 40% of Day State (%)

< 40% of DayNation (%)

Separate School or Residential FacilityState (%)

Separate School or Residential FacilityNation (%)

All disabilities 71.0 63.5 19.8 18.1 5.5 13.3 1.8 3.1

Autism 50.0 39.4 28.3 18.2 16.1 33.6 4.2 7.4

Deaf-blindness 25.0 24.0 25.0 12.6 25.0 36.8 0.0 22.7

Emotional disturbance 65.1 48.0 21.3 17.4 10.1 18.0 3.0 13.9

Hearing impairment 58.7 62.0 35.5 15.1 2.5 11.0 1.7 10.0

Intellectual disability 19.4 17.0 53.5 26.7 22.2 49.1 4.2 6.1

Multiple disabilities 12.1 13.3 26.5 16.6 35.2 46.1 23.1 19.6

Orthopedic impairment 69.6 53.7 26.8 15.3 0.0 22.4 0.0 4.3

Other health impairment 77.3 66.7 19.6 20.4 1.5 8.7 0.7 1.9

Specific learning disabilities 80.5 71.6 17.9 21.6 0.3 4.9 0.2 0.4

Speech or language impairment 94.7 87.2 0.1 4.9 0.0 4.1 0.0 0.2

Traumatic brain injury 42.0 50.9 34.0 21.6 14.0 19.5 8.0 5.4

Visual impairment 72.7 68.1 15.9 12.2 0.0 9.3 9.1 8.2Explanatory Note: The percent of children with disabilities (IDEA) in the state and nation by disability category (excluding children with developmental delays) attending regular classrooms, or separate schools and residential facilities. Note that this table does not include all reported educational environment categories. The denominator is all children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21 (excluding children with developmental delays), in a specified disability category. Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and Educational Environments. National data representthe US, Outlying Areas, and Freely Associated States.

6


Participation and Performance on Assessments

PARTICIPATION OF CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA) IN STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTSGrade and Subject Assessed General Assessment (%) Alternate Assessment (%) Non-participant (%)

4th grade reading/language arts 94 6 0


High school reading/language arts 85 13 2

4th grade mathematics 94 6 0


High school mathematics 85 13 2Explanatory Note: The percent of children with disabilities (IDEA) who participated in statewide assessments for reading and mathematics for 4th grade, 8th grade, and high school. The denominator is the sum of children with disabilities (IDEA) who participated and children with disabilities (IDEA) who did not participate in statewide assessments (excluding those with a significant medical emergency who did not take the assessment). Due to differences in the calculations used for the “children with disabilities (IDEA)” subgroup, these percents may differ from those reported for the CSPR. Data reported for 2017-18 Assessment, accessed from EDFacts on March 27, 2019.Participation data submitted by the following states/ entities were flagged due to questionable data quality in one or more subject areas, grades, and assessment types: DC, NH, MH.

7


PERFORMANCE ON STATEWIDE ASSESSMENTS

Grade and Subject Assessed

Proficient (%)General Assessment (CWD)

Proficient (%)Alternate Assessment (CWD)

Proficient (%)General Assessment (All Students)



High school reading/language arts 14 52 66



High school mathematics 5 57 42Explanatory Note: The percent of students in the state who scored at or above proficient (as determined by each state) on the general assessment for all students and children with disabilities (IDEA) in 4th grade, 8th grade, and high school, and the percent of children with disabilities (IDEA) in the state who scored at or above proficient (as determined by each state) on the alternate assessment. Due to differences in the calculations used for the “all students” and “children with disabilities (IDEA)” subgroup, these percents may differ from those reported for the CSPR. Data reported for 2017-18 Assessment,accessed from EDFacts on March 27, 2019.Achievement data submitted by the following states/ entities were flagged due to questionable data quality in one or more subject areas, grades, and assessment types: AL, BIE, DC, MD, MI, NH, NC, MH.

8


PERFORMANCE ON 2017 NAEP ASSESSMENTS

Grade and Subject AssessedAt or Above (%)Basic (CWD)

At or Above (%)Basic (Non-CWD)

At or Above (%)Proficient (CWD)

At or Above (%)Proficient (Non-CWD)

4th grade reading/language arts 33 75 14 40

8th grade reading/language arts 36 85 4 40

4th grade mathematics 53 88 17 47

8th grade mathematics 28 82 5 42Explanatory Note: The percent of students in the state who scored at or above the Basic level and at or above the Proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for children with disabilities (IDEA) and children without disabilities. Since the NAEP is administered every other year, the percents reported in this table will remain consistent for a two-year period of time. Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) requires states that receive Title I funding to participate in the state NAEP in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 every two years. State NAEP does not provide individual scores for the students or schools assessed. Instead, NAEP provides results about subject-matter achievement, instructional experiences, and school environment, and reports theseresults for populations of students (e.g., fourth-graders) and subgroups of those populations (e.g., children with disabilities (IDEA)).

INCLUSION RATES FOR CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ON 2017 NAEP ASSESSMENTS

Grade and Subject AssessedInclusion Rate State (%)

Inclusion Rate Nation (%)

4th grade reading/language arts 90 88

8th grade reading/language arts 85 88

4th grade mathematics 92 89

8th grade mathematics 86 89Explanatory Note: The percent of students identified as having a disability who were included in the NAEP assessment. A state’s inclusion rate of students identified as having a disability is the weighted percent of students identified as having a disability in the state sampled by NAEP who participate in NAEP. In other words, the weighted number of students identified as having a disability in a state who are selected for participation in NAEP is inthe denominator, the weighted number of those students who participate in NAEP is in the numerator, and the fraction is multiplied by 100 to turn it into a percent. National inclusion rates were based on figures available under "National (public)." Since the NAEP is administered every other year, the percents reported in this table will remain consistent for a two-year period of time.

9


Race/Ethnicity

PERCENT OF STATE CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES (IDEA) BY RACE/ETHNICITY, AGES 6 THROUGH 21

Disability CategoryHispanic/ Latino (%)

Black or African American (%)

White (%)

Asian (%)

American Indian or AlaskaNative (%)

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (%)

Two or moreraces (%)

All Race/ Ethnicities (%)

All students 5.4 3.0 75.2 1.8 11.1 0.1 3.5 100.0

All disabilities 6.5 3.4 68.7 1.0 15.6 0.1 4.7 100.0

Autism 6.1 2.8 75.8 1.0 11.2 0.1 3.0 100.0

Deaf-blindness 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Emotional disturbance 5.2 4.7 70.7 0.2 12.6 0.0 6.6 100.0

Hearing impairment 9.9 1.7 57.0 2.5 21.5 0.8 6.6 100.0

Intellectual disability 6.6 6.6 61.4 2.0 18.7 0.1 4.6 100.0

Multiple disabilities 6.2 6.6 68.4 1.5 13.0 0.4 3.8 100.0

Orthopedic impairment 5.4 1.8 76.8 1.8 7.1 0.0 7.1 100.0

Other health impairment 6.5 4.3 73.5 0.6 10.4 0.1 4.7 100.0

Specific learning disabilities 7.4 2.8 64.6 0.9 19.4 0.1 4.9 100.0

Speech or language impairment 5.2 1.5 73.8 1.4 13.3 0.1 4.8 100.0

Traumatic brain injury 4.0 2.0 54.0 0.0 36.0 0.0 4.0 100.0

Visual impairment 6.8 4.5 84.1 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 100.0Explanatory Note: The percent of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21, in a particular disability category and particular race/ethnicity category in the state. The numerator is the number of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21, in a particular disability category and race/ethnicity category as of the state designated child count date (between October 1 and December 1, 2017) and the denominator is the total number of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21, in a particular disability category. The "All Student" row is calculated using the total number of students enrolled in public schools in grade 1 through grade 12, as well as ungraded, in the state as of October 1, 2016 (or the closest day to October 1). Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and SY 2016-17 CCD.

10


PERCENT OF CWDS (IDEA) IN STATE BY EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT AND RACE/ETHNICITY, AGES 6 THROUGH 21

Educational Environment

Hispanic/ Latino (%)

Black or African American (%) White (%) Asian (%)

American Indian or AlaskaNative (%)

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (%)

Two or races (%)more

All Race/ Ethnicities (%)

≥ 80% of day spent inside regular classroom

66.4 60.9 72.0 64.9 71.2 46.7 71.9 71.0

40 to 79% of day spent inside regular classroom

24.8 21.6 18.9 20.4 21.1 33.3 20.2 19.8

< 40% of day spent inside regular classroom

6.4 14.4 4.9 12.0 4.9 13.3 6.4 5.5

Separate school; Residential facility

1.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.7 0.0 0.9 1.8

Explanatory Note: The percent of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21, in a particular race/ethnicity category andparticular educational environment in the state. Note that this table does not include all reported educational environment categories.The numerator is the number of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21, in a particular race/ethnicity category and particulareducational environment as of the state-designated child count date (between October 1 and December 1, 2017) and the denominator is the total number of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 6 through 21, in a particular race/ethnicity category.Data reported for IDEA 2017 Child Count and Educational Environments.

TOTAL DISCIPLINARY REMOVALS OF CWD (IDEA) IN STATE BY RACE/ETHNICITY, AGES 3 THROUGH 21

Student GroupHispanic/ Latino

Black or African American White Asian

American Indian or AlaskaNative

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

Two or moreraces

All Race/ Ethnicities

Number of Disciplinary Removals per Child with a Disability

0.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 4.6 0.6 0.4

Explanatory Note: The number of disciplinary removals per child with a disability (IDEA), ages 3 through 21, by race/ethnicity category. The numerator is the total number of disciplinary removals in a particular race/ethnicity category and the denominator is the total number of children with disabilities (IDEA), ages 3 through 21, in a particular race/ethnicity category as of the state-designated child count date (between October 1 and December 1, 2016). Data reported for IDEA 2016-17 Discipline and 2016 Child Count and Educational Environments.

11


Parental Involvement

INDICATOR 8: PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT (FFY 2017 APR, 2019)State (%)

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.

88.4

Explanatory Note: State-selected data source. Sampling of parents from whom a response is requested is allowed. Sample must yield valid and reliable data and must be representative of the population sampled. N/A means the percent is not applicable to the state.

Preschool Outcomes

INDICATOR 7: PRESCHOOL OUTCOMES (FFY 2017 APR, 2019)Summary Statement 1: Of those children who entered the program below age expectations in each of the following outcomes, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned six years of age or exited the program in the outcome of: State (%)

Positive social-emotional skills 70.0

Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills 62.4

Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 61.5

Summary Statement 2: The percent of children who were functioning within age expectations in each of the following outcomes by the time they turned six years of age orexited the program State (%)

Positive social-emotional skills 80.6

Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills 56.9

Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs 71.1

Explanatory Note: State-selected data source. Sampling of children for assessment is allowed. Sample must yield valid and reliable data and must be representative of the population sampled. N/A means the percent is not applicable to the state. The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center provides a national summary of the outcomes for children served through IDEA's early childhood programs annually in the Child Outcomes HighlightsFFY2015 document on the Outcomes Measurement page

Post School Outcomes

INDICATOR 14: POST SCHOOL OUTCOMES (FFY 2017 APR, 2019)Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were: State (%)

Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school 27.4

Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school 65.8

Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program;or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school 78.6

Explanatory Note: State-selected data source. Sampling of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school is allowed. Sample must yield valid and reliable data and must be representative of the population sampled. N/A means the percent is not applicable to the state.

12

http://ectacenter.org/eco/


x Data have been suppressed to protect personally identifiable information due to small cell counts.<=3 Data in the cell are less than or equal to three.

- Data not available.* Data flagged due to questionable data quality. These data violated data quality edit checks. Additional information explaining the discrepancies in the data may be available in the data notes documents.

Note: Sum of percents may not equal 100 percent because of rounding.

References: Additional information clarifying states’ data submissions are available in the data notes documents on theIDEA Section 618 Data Products: Collection Documents page.

Additional State-level data on children with disabilities (IDEA) can be found on the following pages:,

o IDEA Section 618 Data Products: State Level Data Files

o Data.gov - The home of the U.S. Government’s open data

o NCES Elementary/Secondary Information System (ElSi)

o Data Tools NAEP Data Explorer

o Census.gov – American FactFinder

13

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/collection-documentation/index.html#datanotes

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/state-level-data-files/index.html

https://www.data.gov/

https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/

https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/landing

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

South Dakota 2019 Part B Results-Driven Accountability Matrix

Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and Determination1 Percentage (%) Determination

89.58 Meets Requirements

Results and Compliance Overall Scoring Total Points Available Points Earned Score (%)

Results 24 19 79.17 Compliance 20 20 100

2019 Part B Results Matrix

Reading Assessment Elements Reading Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

94 2

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

89 1

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Scoring at Basic or Above on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

33 2

Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Included in Testing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

90 1


36 2


85 1

Math Assessment Elements Math Assessment Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of 4th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

94 2

Percentage of 8th Grade Children with Disabilities Participating in Regular Statewide Assessments

89 1


53 2


92 1


28 2


86 1

1 For a detailed explanation of how the Compliance Score, Results Score, and the Results-Driven Accountability Percentage and

Determination were calculated, review "How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2019: Part B."

2 | P a g e

Exiting Data Elements Exiting Data Elements Performance (%) Score Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Dropped Out 23 1 Percentage of Children with Disabilities who Graduated with a Regular High School Diploma1

62 0

2019 Part B Compliance Matrix Part B Compliance Indicator2 Performance

(%) Full Correction of

Findings of Noncompliance

Identified in FFY 2016

Score

Indicator 4B: Significant discrepancy, by race and ethnicity, in the rate of suspension and expulsion, and policies, procedures or practices that contribute to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with specified requirements.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 9: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 10: Disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification.

0 N/A 2

Indicator 11: Timely initial evaluation 99.89 No 2 Indicator 12: IEP developed and implemented by third birthday

97.72 Yes 2

Indicator 13: Secondary transition 93.71 Yes 2 Timely and Accurate State-Reported Data 100 2 Timely State Complaint Decisions 100 2 Timely Due Process Hearing Decisions 100 2 Longstanding Noncompliance 2

Special Conditions None Uncorrected identified noncompliance None

1 Graduated with a regular high school diploma as defined under the IDEA Section 618 State-reported data: These students exited an

educational program through receipt of a high school diploma identical to that for which students without disabilities are eligible. These students met the same standards for graduation as those for students without disabilities. As defined in 34 CFR §300.102(a)(3)(iv), in effect prior to June 30, 2017, “the term regular high school diploma does not include an alternative degree that is not fully aligned with the State’s academic standards, such as a certificate or general educational development credential (GED).”

2 The complete language for each indicator is located in the Part B SPP/APR Indicator Measurement Table at: https://osep.grads360.org/#communities/pdc/documents/17415