FFY2020-FFY2025 Part B SPP/APR Measurement Table

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: docx | pdf | html



Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and 
Annual Performance Report (APR)
Indicator Measurement Table
FFYs 2026-2031

U.S. Department of Education
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services 
FFY 2026 Submission

400 MARYLAND AVE. S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202-2800
www.ed.gov
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR)
Part B Indicator Measurement Table
Table of Contents	
Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE	3
Indicator 1 – Percent of youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) exiting special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma.	3
Indicator 2 – Percent of youth with IEPs who exited special education due to dropping out.	5
Indicator 3 – Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments.	6
Indicator 4 – RESERVED.	8
Indicator 5 – Percent of children with IEPs aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21.	9
Indicator 6 – Percent of children with IEPs aged 3, 4, and aged 5 who are enrolled in a preschool program.	11
Indicator 7 – Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved outcomes.	13
Indicator 8 – 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.	16
Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representation	18
Indicator 9 – Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.	18
Indicator 10 – RESERVED.	19
Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B	20
Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find	20
Indicator 11 – Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe.	20
Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition	22
Indicator 12 – 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 birthdays.	22
Indicator 13 - Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and based upon an age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of study and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services needs.	24
Indicator 14 – Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:	26
Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision	30
Indicator 15 - Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.	30
Indicator 16 - Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.	31
Indicator 17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan	32
Indicator 18 – General Supervision	35
Paperwork Burden Statement	37


Monitoring Priority: FAPE in the LRE 
Indicator 1 – Percent of youth with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) exiting special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Section 618 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS009.
Measurement:
States must report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to graduating with a regular high school diploma in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who exited special education (ages 14-21) in the denominator.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling is not allowed.
Data for this indicator are “lag” data. Describe the results of the State’s examination of the data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2026 SPP/APR, use data from 2025-2026), and compare the results to the target.
Include in the denominator the following exiting categories: (a) graduated with a regular high school diploma; (b) graduated with a state-defined alternate diploma; (c) received a certificate; (d) reached maximum age; or (e) dropped out.
Do not include in the denominator the number of youths with IEPs who exited special education due to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who moved but are known to be continuing in an educational program.
Provide a narrative that describes the requirements youth must meet in order to graduate with a regular high school diploma. If State law, rule, and/or policy permits youth with IEPs to graduate with a regular high school diploma by meeting different requirements, please describe: (1) the State law, rule and/or policy that permits a youth with a disability to receive a regular high school diploma without satisfying all the requirements that youth without disabilities must satisfy to obtain a regular high school diploma; (2) how the State is monitoring to ensure that LEAs are collecting and reporting section 618 data to the State that is consistent with the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS009; and, (3) how the State is monitoring to ensure that parents and youth with disabilities are informed that the receipt of the diploma identified above does not end the LEA’s obligation to provide FAPE to the youth, and that the youth is still eligible to receive FAPE until the youth graduates with a regular high school diploma (as defined in 34 C.F.R. § 300.102(a)(3)(iv)) or the youth exceeds the age eligibility of FAPE under State law. 


Indicator 2 – Percent of youth with IEPs who exited special education due to dropping out.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS009.
Measurement:
States must report a percentage using the number of youth with IEPs (ages 14-21) who exited special education due to dropping out in the numerator and the number of all youth with IEPs who exited special education (ages 14-21) in the denominator.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling is not allowed.
Data for this indicator are “lag” data. Describe the results of the State’s examination of the Section 618 exiting data for the year before the reporting year (e.g., for the FFY 2026 SPP/APR, use data from 2025-2026), and compare the results to the target.
Include in the denominator the following exiting categories: (a) graduated with a regular high school diploma; (b) graduated with a state-defined alternate diploma; (c) received a certificate; (d) reached maximum age; or (e) dropped out.
Do not include in the denominator the number of youths with IEPs who exited special education due to: (a) transferring to regular education; or (b) who moved but are known to be continuing in an educational program.
Provide a narrative that describes what counts as dropping out for all youth. Please explain if there is a difference between what counts as dropping out for all students and what counts as dropping out for students with IEPs.


Indicator 3 – Participation and performance of children with IEPs on statewide assessments:
    A. Participation rate for children with IEPs;
    B. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level academic achievement standards;
    C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against alternate academic achievement standards; and 
    D. Gap in proficiency rates for children with IEPs and for all students against grade level academic achievement standards.
(20 U.S.C. 1416 (a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
    A. Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using EDFacts file specifications FS185 and 188.
    B. Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using EDFacts file specifications FS175 and 178.
    C. Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using EDFacts file specifications FS175 and 178.
    D. Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Title I of the ESEA, using EDFacts file specifications FS175 and 178.
Measurement:
    A. Participation rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs participating in an assessment) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs enrolled during the testing window)]. Calculate separately for reading and math. Calculate separately for grades 4, 8, and high school. The participation rate is based on all children with IEPs, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
    B. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the regular assessment)]. Calculate separately for reading and math. Calculate separately for grades 4, 8, and high school. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
    C. Proficiency rate percent = [(# of children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against alternate academic achievement standards) divided by the (total # of children with IEPs who received a valid score and for whom a proficiency level was assigned for the alternate assessment)]. Calculate separately for reading and math. Calculate separately for grades 4, 8, and high school. The proficiency rate includes both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
    D. Proficiency rate gap = [(proficiency rate for children with IEPs scoring at or above proficient against grade level academic achievement standards for the 2026-2027 school year) subtracted from the (proficiency rate for all students scoring at or above proficient against grade level academic achievement standards for the 2026-2027 school year)]. Calculate separately for reading and math. Calculate separately for grades 4, 8, and high school. The proficiency rate includes all children enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the targets. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Include information regarding where to find public reports of assessment participation and performance results, as required by 
34 C.F.R. § 300.160(f) (i.e., a link to the Web site where these data are reported).
Indicator 3A: Provide separate reading/language arts and mathematics participation rates for children with IEPs for each of the following grades: 4, 8, & high school. Account for ALL children with IEPs, in grades 4, 8, and high school, including children not participating in assessments and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing.
Indicator 3B: Proficiency calculations in this SPP/APR must result in proficiency rates for children with IEPs on the regular assessment in reading/language arts and mathematics assessments (separately) in each of the following grades: 4, 8, and high school, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing.
Indicator 3C: Proficiency calculations in this SPP/APR must result in proficiency rates for children with IEPs on the alternate assessment in reading/language arts and mathematics assessments (separately) in each of the following grades: 4, 8, and high 
school, including both children with IEPs enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing.
Indicator 3D: Gap calculations in this SPP/APR must result in the proficiency rate for children with IEPs were proficient against grade level academic achievement standards for the 2026-2027 school year compared to the proficiency rate for all students who were proficient against grade level academic achievement standards for the 2026-2027 school year. Calculate separately for reading/language arts and math in each of the following grades: 4, 8, and high school, including both children enrolled for a full academic year and those not enrolled for a full academic year. Only include children with disabilities who had an IEP at the time of testing.

Indicator 4 – RESERVED


Indicator 5 – Percent of children with IEPs aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 served:
    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. 
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS002.
Measurement:
    A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class 80% or more of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
    B. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 served inside the regular class less than 40% of the day) divided by the (total # of students aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
    A. Percent = [(# of children with IEPs aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 served in separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/hospital placements) divided by the (total # of students aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 with IEPs)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling from the State’s Section 618 data is not allowed.
States must report five-year-old children with disabilities who are enrolled in kindergarten in this indicator. Five-year-old children with disabilities who are enrolled in preschool programs are included in Indicator 6.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. 
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data reported under Section 618 of the IDEA, explain. 


Indicator 6 – Percent of children with IEPs aged 3, 4, and aged 5 who are enrolled in a preschool program attending a:
    A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program; 
    B. Separate special education class, separate school or residential facility; and
    C. Receiving special education and related services in the home.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under Section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS089.
Measurement:
    A. Percent = [(# of children ages 3, 4, and 5 with IEPs attending a regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of special education and related services in the regular early childhood program) divided by the (total # of children ages 3, 4, and 5 with IEPs)] times 100.
    B. Percent = [(# of children ages 3, 4, and 5 with IEPs attending a separate special education class, separate school or residential facility) divided by the (total # of children ages 3, 4, and 5with IEPs)] times 100.
    C. Percent = [(# of children ages 3, 4, and 5 with IEPs receiving special education and related services in the home) divided by the (total # of children ages 3, 4, and 5 with IEPs)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling from the State’s Section 618 data is not allowed. 
States must report five-year-old children with disabilities who are enrolled in preschool programs in this indicator. Five-year-old children with disabilities who are enrolled in kindergarten are included in Indicator 5.
States may choose to set one target that is inclusive of children ages 3, 4, and 5, or set individual targets for each age.
For Indicator 6C: States are not required to establish a baseline or targets if the number of children receiving special education and related services in the home is less than 10, regardless of whether the State chooses to set one target that is inclusive of children ages 3, 4, and 5, or set individual targets for each age. In a reporting period during which the number of children receiving special education and related services in the home reaches 10 or greater, States are required to develop a baseline and targets, and report on them in the corresponding SPP/APR.
For Indicator 6C: States may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75-85%).
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data reported under Section 618 of the IDEA, explain. 


Indicator 7 – Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who demonstrate improved:
    A. Development and use of social-emotional skills (including within 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. 
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
State-selected data source.
Measurement:
Outcomes:
    A. Development and use of social-emotional skills (including within 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.
Progress categories for A, B, and C:
    a. Percent of preschool children who did not improve functioning = [(# of preschool children who did not improve functioning) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
    b. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning but not sufficient to move nearer to functioning comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
    c. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to a level nearer to same-aged peers but did not reach it) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
    d. Percent of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers = [(# of preschool children who improved functioning to reach a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
    e. Percent of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same- aged peers = [(# of preschool children who maintained functioning at a level comparable to same-aged peers) divided by (# of preschool children with IEPs assessed)] times 100.
Summary Statements for Each of the Three Outcomes:
Summary Statement 1: Of those preschool children who entered the preschool program below age expectations in each Outcome, the percent who substantially increased their rate of growth by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 1:
Percent = [(# of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in category (d)) divided by (# of preschool children reported in progress category (a) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (b) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (c) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (d))] times 100.
Summary Statement 2: The percent of preschool children who were functioning within age expectations in each Outcome by the time they turned 6 years of age or exited the program.
Measurement for Summary Statement 2:
Percent = [(# of preschool children reported in progress category (d) plus # of preschool children reported in progress category (e)) divided by (the total # of preschool children reported in progress categories (a) + (b) + (c) + (d) + (e))] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling of children for assessment is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General Instructions for additional instructions on sampling.)
In the measurement include, in the numerator and denominator, only children who received special education and related services for at least six months during the age span of three through five years.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the targets. States will use the progress categories for each of the three Outcomes to calculate and report the two Summary Statements. States have provided targets for the two Summary 
Statements for the three Outcomes (six numbers for targets for each FFY).
Report progress data and calculate Summary Statements to compare against the six targets. Provide the actual numbers and percentages for the five reporting categories for each of the three Outcomes.
In presenting results, provide the criteria for defining “comparable to same-aged peers”. If a State is using the Early Childhood Outcomes Center (ECO) Child Outcomes Summary (COS), then the criteria for defining “comparable to same-aged peers” has been defined as a child who has been assigned a score of 6 or 7 on the COS.
In addition, list the instruments and procedures used to gather data for this indicator, including if the State is using the ECO COS.


Indicator 8 – 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.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(A))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
State-selected data source.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of respondent parents who report schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities) divided by the (total # of respondent parents of children with disabilities)] times 100. 
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling of parents from whom response is requested is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates. (See General Instructions for additional instructions on sampling.)
Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. The State must describe how the data are collected. The State must also describe how the data are utilized to promote meaningful parental involvement in order to improve services and outcomes for children with disabilities.
If the State is using a separate data collection methodology for preschool children, the State must provide separate baseline data, targets, and actual target data or discuss the procedures used to combine data from school age and preschool data collection methodologies in a manner that is valid and reliable.
While a survey is not required for this indicator, a State using a survey must provide a link to the current survey and report whether the survey is new or has been revised.
Report the number of parents to whom the surveys were distributed and the number of respondent parents. The survey response rate is automatically calculated using the submitted data.
The State must compare the response rate for the reporting year to the response rate for the previous year (e.g., in the FFY 2026 SPP/APR, compare the FFY 2026 response rate to the FFY 2025 response rate) and describe strategies that will be implemented which are expected to increase the response rate.
States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centers in collecting data.


Monitoring Priority: Disproportionate Representation
Indicator 9 – Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(C))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
State’s analysis, based on State’s Child Count data collected under IDEA Section 618, to determine if the disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of districts, that meet the State- established n and/or cell size (if applicable) for one or more racial/ethnic groups, with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification) divided by the (# of districts in the State that meet the State-established n and/or cell size (if applicable) for one or more racial/ethnic groups)] times 100.
Based on its review of the Section 618 data for the reporting year, describe how the State made its annual determination as to whether the disproportionate representation it identified of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services was the result of inappropriate identification as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(d)(3) and 300.602(a), e.g., using monitoring data; reviewing policies, practices, and procedures. In determining disproportionate representation, analyze data, for each district, for all racial and ethnic groups in the district, or all racial and ethnic groups in the district that meet a minimum n and/or cell size set by the State. Report on the percent of districts in which disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services is the result of inappropriate identification, even if the determination of inappropriate identification was made after the end of the FFY 2026 reporting period (i.e., after June 30, 2027).
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Provide racial/ethnic disproportionality data for all children aged 5 who are enrolled in kindergarten and aged 6 through 21 served under IDEA, aggregated across all disability categories. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
States are not required to report on underrepresentation.
If the State has established a minimum n and/or cell size requirement, the State may only include, in both the numerator and the denominator, districts that met that State-established n and/or cell size. If the State used a minimum n and/or cell size requirement, report the number of districts totally excluded from the calculation as a result of this requirement because the district did not meet the minimum n and/or cell size for any racial/ethnic group.
Consider using multiple methods in calculating disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups to reduce the risk of overlooking potential problems. Describe the method(s) used to calculate disproportionate representation.
Provide the number of districts identified with disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification.
Targets must be 0%.

Indicator 10 – RESERVED


Monitoring Priority: Effective General Supervision Part B
Effective General Supervision Part B / Child Find
Indicator 11 – Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be conducted, within that timeframe. 
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system and must be based on actual, not an average, number of days. Indicate if the State has established a timeline and, if so, what is the State’s timeline for initial evaluations.
Measurement:
    a. # of children for whom parental consent to evaluate was received.
    b. # of children whose evaluations were completed within 60 days (or State-established timeline).
Account for children included in (a), but not included in (b). Indicate the range of days beyond the timeline when the evaluation was completed and any reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, include data for the entire reporting year.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data, and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Note that under 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(d), the timeframe set for initial evaluation does not apply to a public agency if: (1) the parent of a child repeatedly fails or refuses to produce the child for the evaluation; or (2) a child enrolls in a school of another public agency after the timeframe for initial evaluations has begun, and prior to a determination by the child’s previous public agency as to whether the child is a child with a disability. States should not report these exceptions in either the numerator (b) or denominator (a). If the State-established timeframe provides for exceptions through State regulation or policy, describe cases falling within those exceptions and include in b.
Targets must be 100%.


Effective General Supervision Part B / Effective Transition
Indicator 12 – 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 birthdays.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system.
Measurement:
    a. # of children who have been served in Part C and referred to Part B for Part B eligibility determination.
    b. # of those referred determined to be NOT eligible and whose eligibility was 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 refusal to provide consent caused delays in evaluation or initial services or to whom exceptions under 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(d) applied.
    e. # of children determined to be eligible for early intervention services under Part C less than 90 days before their third birthdays.
    f. # of children whose parents chose to continue early intervention services beyond the child’s third birthday through a State’s policy under 34 C.F.R. § 303.211 or a similar State option.
Account for children included in (a), but not included in b, c, d, e, or f. Indicate the range of days beyond the third birthday when eligibility was determined and the IEP developed, and the reasons for the delays.
Percent = [(c) divided by (a - b - d - e - f)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, include data for the entire reporting year.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Targets must be 100%.
Category f is to be used only by States that have an approved policy for providing parents the option of continuing early intervention services beyond the child’s third birthday under 34 C.F.R. § 303.211 or a similar State option.


Indicator 13 - Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that 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 services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services, including, if appropriate, pre-employment transition services, was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Data to be taken from State monitoring or State data system.
Measurement:
Percent = [(# of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP that 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 services needs.
There also must be evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services, including, if appropriate, pre-employment transition services, was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority) divided by the (# of youth with an IEP age 16 and above)] times 100.
If a State’s policies and procedures provide that public agencies must meet these requirements at an age younger than 16, the State may, but is not required to, choose to include youth beginning at that younger age in its data for this indicator. If a State chooses to do this, it must state this clearly in its SPP/APR and ensure that its baseline data are based on youth beginning at that younger age.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
If data are from State monitoring, describe the method used to select LEAs for monitoring. If data are from a State database, include data for the entire reporting year.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target. Describe the method used to collect these data and if data are from the State’s monitoring, describe the procedures used to collect these data. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation.
Targets must be 100%.

Indicator 14 – 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.
    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))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
State-selected data source.
Measurement:
    A. Percent enrolled in higher education = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
    B. Percent enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
    C. Percent enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment = [(# of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school and were enrolled in higher education, or in some other postsecondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment) divided by the (# of respondent youth who are no longer in secondary school and had IEPs in effect at the time they left school)] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling of youth who had IEPs and are no longer in secondary school is allowed. When sampling is used, submit a description of the sampling methodology outlining how the design will yield valid and reliable estimates of the target population. (See General Instructions for additional instructions on sampling.)
Collect data by September 2027 on students who left school during 2025-2026, timing the data collection so that at least one year has passed since the students left school. Include students who dropped out during 2025-2026 or who were expected to return but did not return for the current school year. This includes all youth who had an IEP in effect at the time they left school, including those who graduated with a regular diploma or some other credential, dropped out, or aged out.
I. Definitions
Enrolled in higher education as used in measures A, B, and C means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis in a community college (two-year program) or college/university (four or more year program) for at least one complete term, at any time in the year since leaving high school.
Competitive employment as used in measures B and C: States have two options to report data under “competitive employment”:
Option 1: Use the same definition as used to report in the FFY 2015 SPP/APR, i.e., competitive employment means that youth have worked for pay at or above the minimum wage in a setting with others who are nondisabled for a period of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes military employment.
Option 2: States report in alignment with the term “competitive integrated employment” and its definition, in Section 7(5) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended by Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA). For the purpose of defining the rate of compensation for students working on a “part-time basis” under this category, OSEP maintains the standard of 20 hours a week for at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This definition applies to military employment.
Enrolled in other postsecondary education or training as used in measure C, means youth have been enrolled on a full- or part-time basis for at least 1 complete term at any time in the year since leaving high school in an education or training program (e.g., Job Corps, adult education, workforce development program, vocational technical school which is less than a two-year program).
Some other employment as used in measure C means youth have worked for pay or been self- employed for a period of at least 90 days at any time in the year since leaving high school. This includes working in a family business (e.g., farm, store, fishing, ranching, catering services).
II. Data Reporting
The State must describe how the data are collected. The State must also describe how the data are utilized to improve educational results and functional outcomes for all youth with disabilities.
While a survey is not required for this indicator, a State using a survey must provide a link to the current survey and report whether the survey is new or has been revised.
Provide the total number of targeted youth in the sample or census. Provide the actual numbers for each of the following mutually exclusive categories. The actual number of “leavers” who are:
    1. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school;
    2. Competitively employed within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education);
    3. Enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education or competitively employed);
    4. In some other employment within one year of leaving high school (but not enrolled in higher education, some other postsecondary education or training program, or competitively employed).
“Leavers” should only be counted in one of the above categories, and the categories are organized hierarchically. So, for example, “leavers” who are enrolled in full- or part-time higher education within one year of leaving high school should only be reported in category 1, even if they also happen to be employed. Likewise, “leavers” who are not enrolled in either part- or full-time higher education, but who are competitively employed, should only be reported under category 2, even if they happen to be enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program.
States must compare the response rate for the reporting year to the response rate for the previous year (e.g., in the FFY 2026 SPP/APR, compare the FFY 2026 response rate to the FFY 2025 response rate), and describe strategies that will be implemented which are expected to increase the response rate year over year.
III. Reporting on the Measures/Indicators
Targets must be established for measures A, B, and C.
Measure A: For purposes of reporting on the measures/indicators, please note that any youth enrolled in an institution of higher education (that meets any definition of this term in the Higher Education Act (HEA)) within one year of leaving high school must be reported under measure A. This could include youth who also happen to be competitively employed, or in some other training program; however, the key outcome we are interested in here is enrollment in higher education.
Measure B: All youth reported under measure A should also be reported under measure B, in addition to all youth that obtain competitive employment within one year of leaving high school.
Measure C: All youth reported under measures A and B should also be reported under measure C, in addition to youth that are enrolled in some other postsecondary education or training program, or in some other employment.
States are encouraged to work in collaboration with their OSEP-funded parent centers in collecting data.


Effective General Supervision Part B / General Supervision
Indicator 15 - Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS229.
Measurement:
Percent = (3.1(a) divided by 3.1) times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling is not allowed.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of resolution sessions is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of resolution sessions reaches 10 or greater, develop baseline and targets, and report on them in the corresponding SPP/APR.
States may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75- 85%).
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data under IDEA Section 618, explain.
States are not required to report data at the LEA level.


Indicator 16 - Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation agreements.
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
Same data as used for reporting to the Department under section 618 of the IDEA, using the definitions in EDFacts file specification FS228.
Measurement:
Percent = [(2.1(a)(i) + 2.1(b)(i)) divided by 2.1] times 100.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Sampling is not allowed.
Describe the results of the calculations and compare the results to the target.
States are not required to establish baseline or targets if the number of mediations is less than 10. In a reporting period when the number of mediations reaches 10 or greater, develop baseline and targets, and report on them in the corresponding SPP/APR.
States may express their targets in a range (e.g., 75- 85%).
If the data reported in this indicator are not the same as the State’s data under IDEA Section 618, explain.
States are not required to report data at the LEA level.


Indicator 17 – State Systemic Improvement Plan
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
The State’s SPP/APR includes a State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) that meets the requirements set forth for this indicator.
Measurement:
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. The SSIP includes the components described below.
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
Baseline Data: The State must provide baseline data expressed as a percentage and which is aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities.
Targets: In its FFY 2026 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2028, the State must provide measurable and rigorous targets (expressed as percentages) for each of the six years from FFY 2026 through FFY 2031. The State’s FFY 2031 target must demonstrate improvement over the State’s baseline data.
Updated Data: In its FFYs 2026 through FFY 2031 SPPs/APRs, due February 2028 through February 2033, the State must provide updated data for that specific FFY (expressed as percentages), and that data must be aligned with the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities. In its FFYs 2026 through FFY 2031 SPPs/APRs, the State must report on whether it met its target.
Implementation and Evaluation of the SSIP:
It is of the utmost importance to improve results for children with disabilities by improving educational services, including special education and related services. Stakeholders, including parents of children with disabilities, local educational agencies, the State Advisory Panel, and others, are critical participants in improving results for children with disabilities and must be included in developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising the SSIP and included in establishing the State’s targets under Indicator 17. The SSIP should include information about stakeholder involvement in all phases of the improvement cycles.
The State must, consistent with its evaluation plan, assess and report on its progress implementing the SSIP. This includes: (A) data and analysis on the extent to which the State has made progress toward and/or met the State-established short-term and long-term outcomes or objectives for implementation of the SSIP and its progress toward achieving the State-identified Measurable Result(s) for Children with Disabilities (SiMR); (B) the rationale for any revisions that were made, or that the State intends to make, to the SSIP as the result of implementation, analysis, and evaluation; and (C) a description of the meaningful stakeholder engagement. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
Data and Analysis
As required in the Instructions for the Indicator/Measurement, in its FFYs 2026 through 2030 SPPs/APRs, the State must report data for that specific FFY (expressed as actual numbers and percentages) that are aligned with the SiMR. The State must report on whether the State met its target. In addition, the State may report on any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that were collected and analyzed that would suggest progress toward the SiMR. States using a subset of the population from the indicator (e.g., a sample, cohort model) should describe how data are collected and analyzed for the SiMR.
Implementation, Analysis and Evaluation
The State must provide a narrative or graphic representation (e.g., a logic model) of the principal activities, measures and outcomes that were implemented since the State’s last SSIP submission (i.e., February 1, 2027). The evaluation should align with the theory of action and the evaluation plan. The State must describe any changes to the activities, strategies, or timelines and include a rationale or justification for the changes. If the State intends to continue implementing the SSIP without modifications, the State must describe how the data from the evaluation support this decision.
The State must summarize the infrastructure improvement strategies that were implemented, and relate short-term outcomes to one or more areas of a systems framework (e.g., governance, data, finance, accountability/monitoring, quality standards, professional development and/or technical assistance). The State must describe the next steps for each infrastructure improvement strategy and the anticipated outcomes to be attained during the next fiscal year (e.g., for the FFY 2026 APR, report on anticipated outcomes to be attained during FFY 2027, July 1, 2027 – June 30, 2028).
The State must summarize the specific evidence-based practices that were implemented with or on behalf of children and/or families and the strategies or activities that ensured their use with fidelity. Describe how implementation fidelity data and/or any additional data (e.g., progress monitoring data) that was collected to support the on-going use of the evidence-based practices and inform decision- making for the next year of SSIP implementation.
Stakeholder Engagement
The State must describe the specific strategies implemented to engage stakeholders in key improvement efforts and how the State addressed concerns, if any, raised by stakeholders through its engagement activities.
Additional Information
The State should provide any information not already described related to ongoing implementation of the SSIP.


Indicator 18 – General Supervision
(20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3(B))
Data Source and Measurement:
Data Source:
The State must include findings from data collected through all components of the State’s general supervision system that are used to identify noncompliance. This includes, but is not limited to, information collected through State monitoring, State database/data system, dispute resolution, and fiscal management systems as well as other mechanisms through which noncompliance is identified by the State. Provide the actual numbers used in the calculation. Include all findings of noncompliance regardless of the specific type and extent of noncompliance.
Measurement:
This SPP/APR indicator requires the reporting on the percent of findings of noncompliance corrected within one year of identification:
    a. # of findings of noncompliance issued the prior Federal fiscal year (FFY) (e.g., for the FFY 2026 submission, use FFY 2025, July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026)
    b. # of findings of noncompliance the State verified were corrected no later than one year after the State’s written notification of findings of noncompliance
Percent = [(b) divided by (a)] times 100
Instructions for Indicator Measurement
This SPP/APR indicator focuses on the State’s exercise of its general supervision responsibility to monitor its local educational agencies (LEAs) for requirements under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) through the State’s reporting on timely correction of noncompliance (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11) and 1416(a); and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600).
Targets must be 100%.
States are required to complete the General Supervision Data Table within the online reporting tool.
Report in Column A, the number of findings of noncompliance made in FFY 2025 (July 1, 2025 – June 30, 2026), and report in Column C1, the number of those findings which were timely corrected, as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the State’s written notification of noncompliance. Report in Column B, the number of additional findings of noncompliance related to the compliance indicator made in FFY 2025 (July 1, 2025-June 30, 2026) and report in Column C2, the number of those additional findings related to the compliance indicator which were timely corrected, as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the State’s written notification of noncompliance.
States may also provide additional information related to other findings of noncompliance that are not specific to the compliance indicators. (e.g., Results indicators, including related requirements, Fiscal, Dispute Resolution, etc.).
Provide detailed information about the timely correction of child-specific and regulatory/systemic noncompliance as noted in OSEP’s response for the previous SPP/APR. If the State did not ensure timely correction of previous findings of noncompliance, provide information on the extent to which noncompliance was subsequently corrected (more than one year after identification). In addition, provide information regarding the nature of any continuing noncompliance and the actions that have been taken, or will be taken, to ensure the subsequent correction of the outstanding noncompliance, to address areas in need of improvement, and any sanctions or enforcement actions used, as necessary and consistent with IDEA’s enforcement provisions, the OMB Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), and State rules.
Additionally, if the State reported less than 100% compliance for any compliance indicator for the previous reporting period (e.g., for the FFY 2026 SPP/APR, the data for FFY 2025), but did not identify any findings of noncompliance, the State is required to provide an explanation of why the State did not issue any written findings of noncompliance and include how the State verified, prior to issuing a finding, that the LEA has corrected each individual case of child-specific noncompliance and is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements.
Paperwork Burden Statement
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1820-0624. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1,785 hours per response, including time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The obligation to respond to this collection is required to obtain or retain benefit under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et. seq.). If you have any comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate, suggestions for improving this individual collection, or if you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual form, application or survey, please contact Christine Pilgrim / [email protected] directly.