IDEA 2011 South Dakota Part B Annual Performance Report Determination Table (MS Word)

South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators

1. Percent of youth with IEPs The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to the State’s graduating from high school through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. data demonstrating improvement with a regular diploma. in performance in the FFY 2010 The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 82.16%. The FFY 2008 data APR, due February 1, 2012. [Results Indicator] were 82.45%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 target of 83%. The State reported the required graduation rate calculation and timeline established by the Department under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This means that the State submitted the most recent graduation data that the State reported to the Department as part of its Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR).

2. Percent of youth with IEPs The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s dropping out of high school. through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance. stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and [Results Indicator] FFY 2012. The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 3.31%. These data represent slippage from the FFY 2008 data of 1.89%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of 3.31%.

3. Participation and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s performance of children through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State revised the targets for efforts to improve performance. with IEPs on statewide FFY 2010, and improvement activities for FFY 2010, for this indicator, and OSEP assessments: accept those revisions. The revised FFY 2010 target is more rigorous than the previously-established targets. The State indicated that stakeholders were provided an A. Percent of the districts with a opportunity to comment on the revised targets. disability subgroup that meets the State’s minimum “n” size that meet The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data represent the State’s AYP targets for the progress from the FFY 2008 data of 97.67%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of disability subgroup. 96.9%. [Results Indicator]

3. Participation and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s performance of children through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance. with IEPs on statewide stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the revised targets. assessments: The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 99.54% for reading and B. Participation rate for 99.55% for math. These data represent progress from the FFY 2008 data of 97.38% for FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 1 of 12 South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

children with IEPs. reading and 99.37% for math. The State met its FFY 2009 targets of 99.2%. [Results Indicator] The State provided a Web link to 2009 publicly-reported assessment results.

3. Participation and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to the State’s performance of children through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that data demonstrating improvement with disabilities on stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the revised targets. in performance in the FFY 2010 statewide assessments: APR, due February 1, 2012. The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator were: C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, modified FFY 2008 data FFY 2009 data FFY 2009 targets and alternate academic achievement standards. Reading K-8 46.31% 43.46% 69% [Results Indicator] Math K-8 19.70% 45.39% 72%

Reading 9-12 46.05% 24.19% 62%

Math 9-12 23.61% 19.35% 63%

These data represent progress and slippage from the FFY 2008 reported data. The State did not meet any of its FFY 2009 targets. The State provided a Web link to 2009 publicly-reported assessment results.

4. Rates of suspension and The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s expulsion: through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance. stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and A. Percent of districts that have a FFY 2012. significant discrepancy in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 0%. These data remain greater than 10 days in a school year unchanged from the FFY 2008 data of 0%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of .6%. for children with IEPs; and The State reported its definition of “significant discrepancy.” [Results Indicator] The State reported a minimum “n” size requirement of at least ten children with * 09-10 data must be from the 08-09 disabilities expelled or suspended for more than ten days. reporting period, if not, not valid The State reported that 156 of 157 districts did not meet the State-established minimum and reliable. “n” size requirement of 10 but that no districts met the State’s definition of significant

FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 2 of 12 South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

discrepancy.

4. Rates of suspension and The State provided targets for FFY 2010, FFY 2011, and FFY 2012, and improvement OSEP appreciates the State’s expulsion: activities through FFY 2012 for this indicator, and OSEP accepts the State’s submission efforts regarding this indicator. for this indicator. B. Percent of districts that OSEP will be carefully reviewing have: (a) a significant The State’s FFY 2009 baseline data for this indicator are 0%. each State’s definition of “significant discrepancy” and will discrepancy, by race or The State reported that no districts were identified as having a significant discrepancy, contact the State if there are ethnicity, in the rate of by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than ten days in questions or concerns. suspensions and expulsions a school year for children with IEPs. of greater than 10 days in a school year for children The State reported its definition of “significant discrepancy.” with IEPs; and (b) policies, The State reported that none of its districts met the State-established minimum “n” size procedures or practices that of ten or more children with disabilities of the racial or ethnic group who were expelled contribute to the significant or suspended for more than ten days. discrepancy and do not comply with requirements relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural safeguards. [Compliance Indicator]

5. Percent of children with The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s IEPs aged 6 through 21 through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance served: stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the revised targets. and looks forward to the State’s data demonstrating improvement A. Inside the regular class 80% or The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are: in performance in the FFY 2010 more of the day; APR, due February 1, 2012. B. Inside the regular class less than FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Progress 40% of the day; or Data Data Target C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital A. % Inside the regular class 66.14 68.45 65.0 2.31% placements. 80% or more of the day

[Results Indicator] B. % Inside the regular class less 5.35 5.34 6.5 -0.01% than 40% of the day

C. % In separate schools, residential facilities, or 4.0 4.04 4.0 0.04% homebound/hospital placements

These data represent progress for 5A and 5B. The State met its FFY 2009 targets for 5A and5B, but did not meet its FFY 2009 target for 5C.

6. Percent of children aged 3 The State is not required to report on this indicator in the FFY 2009 APR. The State is not required to report through 5 with IEPs on this indicator in the FFY 2010 attending a: APR, due February 1, 2012. A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; and B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility. [Results Indicator; New]

7. Percent of preschool The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s children age 3 through 5 through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that efforts to improve performance with IEPs who demonstrate stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets. and looks forward to the State’s improved: data demonstrating improvement The State’s reported data for this indicator are: in performance in the FFY 2010 A. Positive social-emotional APR, due February 1, 2012. skills (including social FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Summary Statement 1 relationships); Data Data Target The State must report progress B. Acquisition and use of data and actual target data for Outcome A: knowledge and skills FFY 2010 baseline data and Positive social-emotional skills (including early 80 79.78 78.05 targets with the FFY 2010 APR, (including social relationships) language/communication due February 1, 2012. (%) and early literacy); and Outcome B: C. Use of appropriate Acquisition and use of behaviors to meet their knowledge and skills (including 59 64.29 69.41 needs. early language/ communication) [Results Indicator] (%) Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to 89 66.4 71.16 meet their needs (%) FFY 2008 FFY 2009 FFY 2009 Summary Statement 2 Data Data Target Outcome A: Positive social-emotional skills 20 84.04 84 (including social relationships) (%) Outcome B: Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including 41 57.31 54.86 early language/ communication) (%) Outcome C: Use of appropriate behaviors to 11 72.12 71.05 meet their needs (%)

These data represent progress and slippage from the FFY 2008 data. The State met part of its FFY 2009 targets for this indicator.

8. Percent of parents with a child The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s receiving special education services through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State revised its baseline efforts to improve performance. who report that schools facilitated and target for FFY 2010, and OSEP accepts those revisions. The State indicated that parent involvement as a means of stakeholders were provided an opportunity to comment on the revised baseline and improving services and results for targets. children with disabilities. The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 84.19%. These data represent [Results Indicator] progress from the FFY 2008 data of 81.6%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of 64.2%. In its description of its FFY 2009 data, the State addressed whether the response group was representative of the population.

9. Percent of districts with The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s disproportionate representation of through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts regarding this indicator. racial and ethnic groups in special The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 0%. These data remain education and related services that unchanged from the FFY 2008 data of 0%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of 0%. is the result of inappropriate identification. The State reported that no districts were identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services. [Compliance Indicator] The State provided its definition of “disproportionate representation.” The State reported that 131 of 154 districts did not meet the State-established minimum “n” size requirement of 20 and were excluded from the calculation.

10. Percent of districts with The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s disproportionate through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts regarding this indicator. representation of racial and The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 0%. These data remain ethnic groups in specific unchanged from the FFY 2008 data of 0%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of 0%. disability categories that is the result of inappropriate The State reported that no districts were identified with disproportionate representation identification. of racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories. [Compliance Indicator] The State provided its definition of “disproportionate representation.”

The State reported that 140 of 154 districts did not meet the State-established minimum “n” size requirement of 20 and were excluded from the calculation.

11. Percent of children who The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s were evaluated within 60 through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts and looks forward to days of receiving parental reviewing in the FFY 2010 APR, The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 99.88%. These data represent consent for initial due February 1, 2012, the State’s progress from the FFY 2008 data of 99.74%. The State did not meet its FFY 2009 evaluation or, if the State data demonstrating that it is in target of 100%. establishes a timeframe compliance with the timely initial within which the evaluation The State reported that all eight of its findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 evaluation requirements in 34 must be conducted, within for this indicator were corrected in a timely manner. CFR §300.301(c)(1). Because the that timeframe. State reported less than 100% compliance for FFY 2009, the [Compliance Indicator] State must report on the status of correction of noncompliance reflected in the data the State reported for this indicator. When reporting on the correction of noncompliance, the State must report, in its FFY 2010 APR, that it has verified that each LEA with noncompliance reflected in the FFY 2009 data the State reported for this indicator: (1) is correctly implementing 34 CFR §300.301(c)(1) (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has completed the evaluation, although late, for any child whose initial evaluation was not timely, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 7 of 12 South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

LEA, consistent with OSEP Memorandum 09-02, dated October 17, 2008 (OSEP Memo 09-02). In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

12. Percent of children referred by The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s Part C prior to age 3, who are through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts in achieving compliance found eligible for Part B, and who with the early childhood transition The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data remain have an IEP developed and requirements in 34 CFR unchanged from the FFY 2008 data of 100%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of implemented by their third §300.124(b). 100%. birthdays. [Compliance Indicator]

13. Percent of youth with IEPs The State provided FFY 2009 baseline data, targets for FFY 2010, FFY 2011, and FFY The State must demonstrate, in aged 16 and above with an 2012, and improvement activities through FFY 2012 for this indicator, and OSEP the FFY 2010 APR, due February IEP that includes accepts the State’s submission for this indicator. 1, 2012, that the State is in appropriate measurable compliance with the secondary The State’s FFY 2009 reported baseline data for this indicator are 100%. However, postsecondary goals that transition requirements in 34 CFR OSEP has recalculated these data to be 77% . The State reported that based on its initial are annually updated and §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b). review of a sample of 213 student files, 49 IEPs did not meet the secondary transition based upon an age Because the State reported less requirements. The State reported that it required the LEAs to take the necessary steps to appropriate transition than 100% compliance for FFY correct the 49 IEPs out of compliance. The State then reported 100% compliance for assessment, transition 2009, the State must report on the this indicator. It is inconsistent with the required measurement to include the number of services, including courses status of correction of youth whose IEPs were corrected after the initial review when calculating the State’s of study, that will noncompliance reflected in the level of compliance for this indicator. The State is required to report the number of reasonably enable the data the State reported for this youth with IEPs that met secondary transition requirements in the initial review. student to meet those indicator. postsecondary goals, and When reporting on the correction annual IEP goals related to FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 8 of 12 South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

the student’s transition of noncompliance, the State must services needs. There also report, in its FFY 2010 APR, that must be evidence that the it has verified that each LEA with student was invited to the noncompliance reflected in the IEP Team meeting where FFY 2009 data the State reported transition services are to be for this indicator: (1) is correctly discussed and evidence implementing 34 CFR that, if appropriate, a §§300.320(b) and 300.321(b) representative of any (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) participating agency was based on a review of updated data invited to the IEP Team such as data subsequently meeting with the prior collected through on-site consent of the parent or monitoring or a State data system; student who has reached and (2) has corrected each the age of majority. individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer [Compliance Indicator] within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction. If the State does not report 100% compliance in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must review its improvement activities and revise them, if necessary.

The State provided FFY 2009 baseline data, targets for FFY 2010, FFY 2011, and FFY The State must report actual target A. Enrolled in higher 2012, and improvement activities through FFY 2012 for this indicator, and OSEP data for FFY 2010 with the FFY education within one year accepts the State’s submission for this indicator. The State indicated that stakeholders 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012. of leaving high school; were provided an opportunity to comment on the targets for FFY 2011 and 2012. B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively The State’s reported FFY 2009 baseline data for this indicator are: employed within one year A. 14.62% enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school; of leaving high school. B. 66.08% enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of C. Enrolled in higher FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 9 of 12 South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

Monitoring Priorities and Status of APR Data/SPP Revision Issues OSEP Analysis/Next Steps Indicators education or in some other leaving high school; and postsecondary education or C. 80.41% enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one competitively employed or year of leaving high school. in some other employment

within one year of leaving high school. [Results Indicator]

15. General supervision system The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s (including monitoring, through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts in timely correcting complaints, hearings, etc.) findings of noncompliance The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data represent identifies and corrects identified in FFY 2008. progress from the FFY 2008 data of 99.53%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of noncompliance as soon as 100%. In reporting on correction of possible but in no case later findings of noncompliance in the than one year from The State reported that all 129 findings of noncompliance identified in FFY 2008 were FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, identification. corrected in a timely manner. 2012, the State must report that it [Compliance Indicator] verified that each LEA with noncompliance identified in FFY 2009: (1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data such as data subsequently collected through on-site monitoring or a State data system; and (2) has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, consistent with OSEP Memo 09-02. In the FFY 2010 APR, the State must describe the specific actions that were taken to verify the correction.

In reporting on Indicator 15 in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must use the Indicator 15 Worksheet. In addition, in responding to Indicators 11 and in the FFY 2010 APR, the State must report on correction of the noncompliance described in this table under those indicators.

16. Percent of signed written The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s complaints with reports through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts in achieving compliance issued that were resolved with the timely complaint The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data are based within 60-day timeline or a resolution requirements in 34 on three complaints. The State met its FFY 2009 target of 100%. timeline extended for CFR §300.152. exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State. [Compliance Indicator]

17. Percent of adjudicated due The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP looks forward to reviewing process hearing requests through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. the State’s data in the FFY 2010 that were adjudicated APR, due February 1, 2012. The State reported that it received two due process hearing requests during the FFY within the 45-day timeline 2009 reporting period and that both were resolved without a hearing. or a timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either party or in FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 11 of 12 South Dakota Part B FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table

the case of an expedited hearing, within the required timelines. [Compliance Indicator]

18. Percent of hearing requests The State reported that no resolution sessions were held during the reporting period. OSEP looks forward to reviewing that went to resolution the State’s data in the FFY 2010 The State reported fewer than ten resolution sessions held in FFY 2009. The State is sessions that were resolved APR, due February 1, 2012. not required to provide targets or improvement activities until any fiscal year in which through resolution session ten or more resolution sessions were held. settlement agreements. [Results Indicator]

19. Percent of mediations held The State reported that all eight mediations resulted in mediation agreements. OSEP looks forward to reviewing that resulted in mediation The State reported fewer than ten mediations held in FFY 2009. the State’s data in the FFY 2010 agreements. APR, due February 1, 2012. The State is not required to provide targets or improvement activities until any fiscal [Results Indicator] year in which ten or more mediations were held.

20. State reported data (618 The State provided targets for FFY 2011 and FFY 2012, and improvement activities OSEP appreciates the State’s and State Performance Plan through FFY 2012, and OSEP accepts those revisions. efforts in achieving compliance and Annual Performance with the timely and accurate data The State’s FFY 2009 reported data for this indicator are 100%. These data remain Report) are timely and reporting requirements in IDEA unchanged from the FFY 2008 data of 100%. The State met its FFY 2009 target of accurate. sections 616 and 618 and 34 CFR 100%. §§76.720 and 300.601(b). [Compliance Indicator] In reporting on Indicator 20 in the FFY 2010 APR, due February 1, 2012, the State must use the Indicator 20 Data Rubric.

FFY 2009 SPP/APR Response Table South Dakota Page 12 of 12