Governor Phil Murphy • Lt. Governor Tahesha Way

About Special Education Determinations

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Part B regulations, § 300.600(a)(2), require states to make determinations annually about the performance of each local education agency (LEA), using the categories meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, and needs substantial intervention (§ 300.603(b)(1)). The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (USOSERS) 2009 memo, Questions and Answers on Monitoring, Technical Assistance, and Enforcement, provides further details on factors states must consider when making LEA determinations, including:  

  • performance on State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) compliance indicators;   
  • valid and reliable data;   
  • correction of identified noncompliance, and 
  • other data or components available to the state regarding the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings.   

States may also include other information they deem relevant to LEA determinations aside from SPP/APR indicators. The Office of Special Education (OSE), in alignment with the requirements of the United States Office of Special Education (USOSEP) determinations, will use the following factors listed below. Components are described as indicators or factors that are reflected in the FY2023 determinations matrix. Points allocated are based on current FY2023 results. 

Data Suppression

As part of the public reporting, you may see data that is suppressed, or “blank”. Data suppression rules govern how certain information, such as demographic data or student performance data, is handled and reported to ensure compliance with privacy laws like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). However, district administrators can access their unsuppressed data through the Homeroom application. 

See below for more information about how the New Jersey Department of Education calculates and assigns special education determinations.

About Factor 1: Significant Discrepancies in Long-Term Removals of Students with Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity

Indicator 4B examines the likelihood that students with disabilities from a specific racial/ethnic group are suspended for more than 10 days in each school district. When that likelihood, or risk, is greater than 2.5 times the risk for students with disabilities statewide, the NJDOE identifies the district as significantly discrepant for long-term suspensions and/or expulsions of students with disabilities in that specific racial/ethnic group and reviews the district’s policies, practices and procedures to ensure compliance.

Indicator 4b One-Pager

Factor Points

Factor 1: Compliance with Indicator 4b

significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity in the long-term suspension rate of students with IEPs

4 Points

The LEA met Indicator 4B's minimum N- and cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year and was not identified, e.g., did not have a risk rate above the threshold.

3 Points

none

2 Points

none

1 Point

The LEA met Indicator 4B's minimum N- and cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year and had at least one risk rate at or above the threshold.

0 Points

The LEA was evaluated and identified for significant discrepancy for two consecutive years, including the most recent.
Not Applicable

The LEA did not meet Indicator 4B's minimum N- or cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year.

Additional Guidance

Resources

About Factor 2: Disproportionate Representation in Identification 

The following measures are included as part of Factor 2: 

  • Indicator 9: Disproportionate Representation - Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of certain racial/ethnic groups in special education and related services resulting from inappropriate identification. 
  • Indicator 10: Disproportionate Representation in Specific Disability Categories- Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of certain racial/ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification. 

Disproportionate representation is when the likelihood, or risk, of identification or placement is three times greater for one racial/ethnic group than it is for all other students within the district for three consecutive years. For a district to be identified for disproportionate representation, it must enroll at least 30 students in the racial/ethnic group and at least 10 students with IEPs in the racial/ethnic group.

Indicator 9 One-Pager and Indicator 10 One-Pager

Factor Points

Factor 2: Compliance with Indicators 9 and 10

disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education or in specific disability categories for three consecutive years

4 Points

The LEA had at least one racial or ethnic group meet Indicators 9 or 10's minimum N- and cell size requirements for evaluation for three consecutive years and was not identified, e.g. the evaluated group(s) did not have risk ratios above the threshold for three consecutive years.

3 Points

none

2 Points

none

1 Point

The LEA was identified for disproportionate representation in the most recent year and was found compliant following a review of policies, practices, and procedures.

0 Points

The LEA was identified for disproportionate representation in the most recent year and was found not compliant following a review of policies, practices, and procedures.
Not Applicable

No group within the LEA met Indicator 9 or 10's minimum N- or cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year. This includes vocational-technical schools and other LEAs identified as disproportionate for identification and placement.

Additional Guidance

Resources

About Factor 3: Child Find

Indicator 11 collects and reports data to determine whether students receive initial evaluations and whether eligibility for special education is determined within the federal timeline or state regulations. In New Jersey, evaluations must be completed, and eligibility must be determined within 90 calendar days from the date of a parent's written consent (unless the reason for delay meets an exception outlined in IDEA (34 CFR 300.301 (d)) and 34 CFR 300.309 (c)).

Indicator 11 ensures that students who are evaluated and found eligible receive special education and related services without unnecessary delay. LEAs must comply with the IDEA, 34 CFR 300.111 and 300.301, and NJ regulations, N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4 (e). Evaluations that are not completed within the required timeline may result in a delay or denial of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).

Factor Points

Factor 3: Indicator 11

Child Find

4 Points

The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 100% of students with parental consent to evaluate.

3 Points

The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 95 to 99.9% of students with parental consent to evaluate.

2 Points

The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 80 to 94.9% of students with parental consent to evaluate.

1 Point

The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for less than 80% of students with parental consent to evaluate.

0 Points

none
Not Applicable

The LEA reported zero students with parental consent to evaluate for special education services, or all students reported had a valid reason for delay. 

Additional Guidance

    Resources

    About Factor 4: Age 3 Transition

    Indicator 12 ensures the transition from Early Intervention (Part C) to LEA preschool services (Part B) by the student’s third birthday.

    Factor Points

    Factor 4: Indicator 12

    Age 3 Transition

    4 Points

    The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 100% of children referred from Part C.

    3 Points

    The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 95 to 99.9% of children referred from Part C.

    2 Points

    The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 80 to 94.9% of children referred from Part C.

    1 Point

    The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for less than 80% of children referred from Part C.

    0 Points

    none
    Not Applicable

    The LEA reported zero students referred from Part C, or all students reported had a valid reason for delay. 

    Additional Guidance

    Resources

    About Factor 5: Age 16 Transition

    This factor addresses the percentage of students with IEPs aged 16 and above whose IEPs include the following eight factors:

    • Appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and cover education, training, employment, and, as needed, independent living
    • Transition services, including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet the postsecondary goals;
    • Post-secondary goals are based on age-appropriate transition assessments;
    • Transition services include courses of study that reasonably enable the student to meet their post-secondary goals;
    • Annual IEP goals relate to the student's transition service needs;
    • The student was invited to the IEP meeting where transition services were discussed; and,
    • If appropriate, a representative of any participaing agency was invited to the IEP meeting with consent from the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.

    Indicator 13 One-Pager

    Factor Points

    Factor 5: Indicator 13

    Age 16 Transition

    4 Points

    100% of monitored IEPs included all required postsecondary information and evidence of student participation in the process.

    3 Points

    At least 95% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary information and evidence of student participation in the process.

    2 Points

    Between 80 and 94.9% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary information and evidence of student participation in the process.

    1 Point

    Less than 80% of the IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary information and evidence of student participation in the process.

    0 Points

    none
    Not Applicable

    The LEA was not included in the monitoring cohort or does not serve students in grades 10 and above.

    Additional Guidance

    Resources

    About Factor 6: Alternate Assessment (DLM) Participation Rate

    The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires that no more than one percent (1%) of the total number of tested students participate in the DLM assessment. 

    This factor looks at participation rates for each LEA across three content areas: English Language Arts, Math, and Science. The highest rate of participation across each of the three areas for each LEA is used to determine the point allocation relative to the determinations matrix.

    • Calculations for ELA and Math are determined by the number of students participating in the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) across all grade levels divided by the total test enrollment for all grade levels (3-8, 11) and including students taking both the NJSLA (3-9) and DLM (3-8, 11). Calculations should include students within the district and in out-of-district placements.
    • The calculation for Science is determined by the number of students participating in the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) across all grade levels (5, 8, and 11) divided by the total test enrollment for all grade levels (5, 8, and 11) and including students taking both the NJSLA (5, 8, and 11) and DLM (5, 8, and 11). Calculations should include students within the district and in out-of-district placements.
    Factor Points

    Factor 6: Alternate Assessment (DLM) Participation Rate

    4 Points

    The LEA kept participation in the DLM to a minimum, less than 1%, in all content areas (English language arts, mathematics, and science).

    3 Points

    The LEA allowed 1 to 1.24% of students to participate in one or more content-area DLM.

    2 Points

    The LEA allowed 1.25 to 1.49% of students to participate in one or more content-area DLM.

    1 Point

    The LEA allowed 1.5 to 1.99% of students to participate in one or more content-area DLM.

    0 Points

    The LEA allowed participation in one or more content-area DLM to reach 2%.
    Not Applicable

    none

    Additional Guidance

    Resources

    About Factor 7: Indicator 5A (School-Age Least Restrictive Environment)

    The least restrictive environment (LRE) is a guiding principle in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). LRE plays a critical role in determining not only where a student will spend their time in school but also how special education services will be provided. The term “environment” in the least restrictive environment can be interpreted to imply that LRE is a place or location. In fact, LRE does not merely refer to a particular setting. Rather, identifying the LRE involves making program decisions about what services and supports a student needs to be successful and where and how those services and supports can be provided effectively (IRIS Center, 2019).

    LRE Requirements include:

    • Students with disabilities receive their education alongside their peers without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate (§300.324(d)(2)(i); (N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)(1))
    • Removal occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (§300.324(d)(2)(i); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.2(a)(2))

    Factor 7 examines data on the percentage of students receiving services alongside their non-disabled peers for 80% or more of the school day.

    Factor Details

    Factor 7: Indicator 5a

    School-age least restrictive environment (LRE) performance
    4 Points

    The LEA served at least 60% of K-12 students with IEPs inside the general education class 80% or more of the day.

    3 Points

    The LEA served between 45 and 59.9% of K-12 students with IEPs inside the general education class 80% or more of the day.

    2 Points

     none

    1 Point

    The LEA served more than 30% but less than 45% of K-12 students with IEPs inside the general education class 80% or more of the day.

    0 Points

    The LEA served 30% or less of K-12 students with IEPs inside the general education class 80% or more of the day.

    Not Applicable

    none

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    General Resource

    About Factor 8: Failure to Address Noncompliance Within 1 Year

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to monitor and enforce the Part B requirements, with a primary focus on “…improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities, and ensuring that
    public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of the Act, with a particular emphasis on those requirements that are most closely related to improving educational results for children with disabilities.” (34 CFR §300.600(b))

    General supervision and monitoring of noncompliance will be conducted on an individual basis. USOSEP Memo 23-01 identifies that states must verify that the LEA "...(1) is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data and information, such as data and information subsequently collected through integrated monitoring activities or the State’s data system (systemic compliance); and (2) if applicable, has corrected each individual case of child-specific noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA or provider, and no outstanding corrective action exists under a State complaint or due process hearing decision for the child (child-specific compliance)" (p.19).

    LEAs are notified whether they met requirements within one year of notification, in accordance with USOSEP Memo 23-01. These findings are also reflected within Factor 8 of the LEA's determinations.

    Factor Points

    Factor 8: Failure to Address Noncompliance Within 1 Year

    4 points

    none 

    3 points

    none 

    2 points

    none

    1 point

    The LEA was identified for noncompliance in the previous accountability cycle and corrected all issues of noncompliance within one year.

    0 points

    The LEA was identified for noncompliance in the previous accountability cycle and did not correct all issues of noncompliance within one year.

    Not Applicable

    The LEA was not identified as noncompliant in the previous accountability cycle.

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    About Factor 9: Indicator 8 and 14 Participation Requirements

    The United States Department of Education (USED) requires that each state submit a State Performance Report/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) providing data on indicators of the performance of students with disabilities and compliance with prioritized requirements in the IDEA.

    • Indicator 8 of the SPP/APR, Parent Involvement, requires the State to collect data to determine the “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.”
    • Indicator 14 of the SPP/APR, Post-School Outcomes, requires the State to collect data on the percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were: (A) Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school; (B) Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school; and, (C) 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. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)).

    Participation in Indicators 8 and 14 are not optional. Under IDEA, these indicators are part of a required general supervision activity, designed to ensure compliance with federal requirements for special education services.

    Factor Points

    Factor 9: Indicators 8 and 14

    Compliance with participation requirements

    4 points

     none

    3 points

     none

    2 points

    The LEA was included in the cohort for Indicator 8 and/or 14 and submitted all required materials by the deadline.

    1 point

     none

    0 points

    The LEA was included in the cohort for Indicator 8 and/or 14 and failed to submit required materials by the deadline.

    Not Applicable

    The LEA was not included in the cohort for either Indicator 8 or 14.

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    About Factor 10: Accuracy of Student Data Submissions

    "High-quality data are timely, accurate, and complete. In addition, they are usable, accessible, and secure. Educators and representatives at the local, state, and federal levels use high-quality...special education data to inform their decisions as they work to meet the needs of children and students with disabilities and their families" (IDEA Data Center, 2017).

    This factor evaluates the LEA's submission of accurate, complete data via New Jersey's Standards Measurement and Resource for Teaching (NJ SMART) and the Department’s web application portfolio, accessed through Homeroom. The results are monitored remotely. The OSE ensured consistency in measuring data quality by aligning result measurements to those of the NJQSAC manual and processes.

    Factor Points

    Factor 10: Accuracy of Student Data Submissions

    Errors in data submissions used for Child Count
    Weighted 0.5

    4 points

    The LEA's student management data submissions used to determine Child Count  (i.e., the Fall SID Management and Special Education submissions) did not contain errors.

    3 points

    One of the LEA's data submissions used for Child Count contained errors, but the error rate did not exceed 1.5%.

    2 points

    Both of the LEA's data submissions used for Child Count contained errors but neither had an error rate of more than 1.5%.

    1 point

    At least one of the LEA's data submissions used for Child Count had an error rate greater than 1.5%.

    0 points

    The LEA failed to upload and/or certify at least one of the two data submissions used to calculated Child Count.

    Not Applicable

    none

    Additional Guidance

    Resources

    About Factor 11: Timely IDEA Part B Grant Submissions

    LEAs are responsible for adhering to the timelines and requirements set forth by the New Jersey Department of Education. This factor is monitored remotely and evaluates whether the LEA submitted the IDEA grant application and final expenditure report by the due dates. 

    Factor Points

    Factor 11: Timely IDEA Part B Grant Submissions

    4 points

    none

    3 points

    none

    2 points

    The LEA submitted its IDEA grant application and final expenditure report by the due dates.

    1 point

    none

    0 points

    The LEA did not submit its IDEA grant application and/or final expenditure report by the due dates.

    Not Applicable

    none

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    General Resources and Guidance

    Calculating and Assigning Determinations

    The New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) evaluates each school district based on 11 performance factors, detailed below. Most factors carry a maximum of 4 points; however, some have lower maximum point values. Districts earn points based on their level of compliance and performance for each factor. Higher point totals reflect stronger overall performance. Certain factors—particularly those related to corrective actions for noncompliance—may not be applicable to all districts.

    Maximum Point Values by Factor:

    • Most factors: up to 4 points

    • Factor 8: up to 1 point

    • Factors 9, 10, and 11: up to 2 points each

    Determination Assignment Process

    School districts are first grouped according to the total number of applicable points:

    • Group 1: Districts with 25 or more applicable points

    • Group 2: Districts with fewer than 25 applicable points

    Within each group, districts are ranked based on the percentage of points earned out of the total possible. The lowest-performing 5% of districts in each group are assigned a Needs Assistance determination.

    Differentiated Supports for Local Determinations

    After the LEA Determination Percentage is calculated, LEAs are ordered by rank, and a percentile is calculated. The LEA’s percentile ranking corresponds with an LEA Determination category, placing an LEA into one of four categories as described below. The LEA Determination categories align with those used by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) when evaluating State Education Agencies (SEAs) 34 CFR § 300.603(b). 

    • Meets Requirements –6th percentile and above
    • Needs Assistance – 5th percentile and below
    • Needs Intervention – determined on a case-by-case basis
    • Needs Substantial Intervention – determined on a case-by-case basis

    The OSE maintains a commitment to improving educational achievements and functional outcomes for every student with disabilities while ensuring that local educational agencies fulfill the requirements under Part B of the IDEA. The OSE has designed three Differentiated Levels of Support to meet the needs of LEAs to improve educational results and outcomes for students with disabilities. An explanation of the Differentiated Levels of Support is provided in this section.

    For LEAs with the FFY2023 determination of Meets Requirements, the OSE provides Tier 1 Support: Information and Guidance. Within this tier, the OSE aims to equip LEAs with the tools and knowledge necessary to drive positive outcomes and address areas of need effectively. This may include:

    Utilizing resource documents provided by the OSE to inform strategic planning, engage stakeholders effectively, and foster a culture of continuous improvement within their organizations.

    For LEAs with the FFY2023 determination of Needs Assistance, the OSE provides Tier 2 Support: Assistance and Consultation. Within this tier, LEAs will:

    • Be notified via memo with required actions;
    • Have access to the information, guidance, and opportunities listed as part of Tier 1 Support: Information and Guidance; and,
    • Identify a team to collaborate with OSE staff to identify needs and success gaps relative to the determinations matrix and receive targeted support for improvement.

    For LEAs with the FFY2023 determination of Needs Intervention or Substantial Intervention, the OSE will provide Tier 3 Support: Direction and Transformation. The process for tier 3 support is determined on a case-by-case basis. In addition, LEAs will: 

    • Be notified via memo with required actions
    • Have access to the information, guidance, and opportunities listed as part of Tier 1 Support: Information and Guidance.

    Note: For FFY2023, LEAs only received Tier 1 and 2 designations. 

    If you see an alligator

    Dont forget to scream By: Unknown Author

    If you see an alligator