SPP/APR Summit 2023

To kick off IDC’s second annual SPP/APR Summit, we asked state staff from Arizona and Washington to share how they have communicated the moral of their SPP/APR and State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) stories and the innovative ways they have made these federal reports more accessible to a wide array of audiences. State staff discussed the strategies they’ve used, how they’ve parlayed this work into stakeholder engagement efforts, and the benefits they’ve experienced as a result of their unique approaches.

Does your state’s Indicator 4 methodology examine a very low percentage of LEAs (or maybe even none) for significant discrepancy? Did your state’s threshold for measuring significant discrepancy fall above the median of thresholds used by all states? Does your state have a required action(s) for Indicator 4A and/or Indicator 4B that you must address in your FFY 2022 SPP/APR and submit by February 1, 2024? Are you thinking ahead about the proposed changes to Indicator 4 that you must address in your FFY 2023 SPP/APR and submit by February 1, 2025? If you answered “yes” to any of these questions, this is the session for you. During this session, IDC and state presenters discussed Indicator 4 methodology and reviewed tips for addressing these requirements.

Did your state receive comments regarding your reporting of response rates, representativeness, or nonresponse bias for Indicator 8 in your latest SPP/APR? In this discussion, we took a look at the common triggers for OSEP responses for Indicator 8. Then, we introduced how IDC’s Nonresponse Bias Analysis Application—NRBA App can help states accurately analyze and report on their data’s response rates, representativeness, and nonresponse bias. Finally, we outlined a strategy for approaching the relevant SPP/APR prompts in the most effective and efficient way.

Did your state receive comments regarding your reporting of response rates, representativeness, or nonresponse bias for Indicator 14 in your latest SPP/APR? In this discussion, we took a look at the common triggers for OSEP responses for Indicator 14. Then, we introduced how IDC’s Nonresponse Bias Analysis Application—NRBA App App can help states accurately analyze and report on their data’s response rates, representativeness, and nonresponse bias. Finally, we outlined a strategy for approaching the relevant SPP/APR prompts in the most effective and efficient way.

During this session, IDC TA staff and state presenters discussed the current general supervision landscape and how it affects IDEA data collection, reporting, and use, with an emphasis on OSEP guidance 23-01, proposed changes to the FFY 2023 SPP/APR, and the OSEP Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) process. Presenters gave an overview of OSEP’s requirements and provided participants with an opportunity to consider any changes their state may need to implement in relation to IDEA data collection, reporting, and use practices. Participants also had the opportunity to strategize with colleagues from other states.

Preparing for the proposed SPP/APR Indicator 18, or the General Supervision Data Table, can feel a lot like organizing a dinner party—a dinner party with a lot of guests and many courses! “Setting” the General Supervision Data Table requires an understanding of the different dinner guests you must invite, who will be integral for accurately reporting findings of noncompliance. It also requires knowledge of how to collect different compliance “ingredients” as part of your state’s general supervision system and how these ingredients come together to build a menu. In this large group session, we dug into the details surrounding the proposed Indicator 18, the related requirements document, and more! Participants had opportunities to collaborate with and learn from IDC and state staff to help “set” the perfect General Supervision Data Table for the most epic of parties!

In this session, we explored the power and benefit of ongoing stakeholder engagement in building strong partnerships for the SPP/APR. By actively involving all relevant parties in the SPP/APR, states can achieve more positive outcomes and ensure the success of their efforts. This session started with a brief overview of the SPP/APR requirements for ongoing stakeholder engagement and identification of key stakeholders. Next, we reviewed strategies for increasing that engagement and building strong partnerships. Finally, a state panel responded to questions and discussed examples of partnerships they have built in their states through ongoing and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

SPP/APR Indicators 9 and 10, which assess disproportionate representation among children identified with disabilities, can be complex and overwhelming. Never fear—IDC is here to help! In this session, we investigated the what, why, and how of disproportionate representation, including reporting requirements for Indicators 9 and 10. We dug deeply into the methodologies states can use to determine disproportionate representation, the monitoring and compliance components of these indicators, and the connections between disproportionate representation and significant disproportionality. Throughout this session, participants had the opportunity to collaborate with and learn from peers through interactive activities, leading to an increased knowledge and understanding of Indicators 9 and 10.

Is your State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) built for scalability and sustainability? Does it have a strong foundation that can support its activities and other educational initiatives? And, if so, how do you know? The first phase of the SSIP required states to evaluate the capacity of their state infrastructure and then select improvement strategies to support that improvement and build capacity. The second SSIP phase required states to develop infrastructure improvement strategies and evidence-based practices (EBPs) to improve outcomes for children. States must evaluate their SSIP every year with a close look at progress data and their State-identified Measurable Result (SiMR), but does your state’s evaluation plan include looking at how well its infrastructure supports improvement and builds capacity? In this session, we explored how to evaluate your state’s infrastructure to make sure you build an SSIP with a solid foundation for scalability and sustainability.

Tick tock! It’s time to make sure you are prepared for the whirlwind of your state’s assessment data submission through EDPass and Indicator 3 reporting requirements for the SPP/APR submission on February 1, 2024. Like the old game show, it may feel like your state education agency is trying to “Beat the Clock” with assessment data! In this session, hosts Kate Nagle and Audrey Rudick helped participants learn about Indicator 3 and each of its sub elements. They discussed changes to the EDFacts files for assessment, and how those changes may or may not affect the indicator, along with the new timeline for data submission. Finally, they reviewed a new tool from IDC that will enable states to get an early look at their actual Indicator 3 data and help them “Beat the Clock” on the Indicator 3 reporting requirements.

In July of 2023, OSEP released State General Supervision Responsibilities Under Parts B and C of the IDEA: Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement, OSEP QA 23-01. This guidance addresses key state general supervision responsibilities, including the SPP/APR, the identification and correction of noncompliance, and LEA determinations. What are the implications of 23-01 for the way states collect, report, and use IDEA data, including SPP/APR data? In this session, participants had an opportunity to hear from IDC technical assistance specialists as well as to discuss the data-related connections included in 23-01 with state colleagues.