​Proposed changes to the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report 

Select Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2026-SCC-0661-0003) and then file 1820-0624 Part B SPP APR Explanation and Rationale. 

​Most of OSEP’s proposed changes affect the work that states carry out. For example, OSEP is recommending the removal of duplicative reporting requirements across four indicators. Rather than having states report the same information in multiple places, OSEP proposes consolidating the content under a single, most appropriate indicator. However, there are two indicators that OSEP proposes eliminating that directors may want to comment on: Indicators B4a/b and B10. 

​Indicator B4a/b requires states to analyze data on special education students who receive out-of-school suspensions and/or expulsions totaling 10 or more days, and to determine whether any district policies, procedures, or practices contribute to inappropriate long-term removals from the school setting. Even if this indicator is removed, states would still be required to calculate some of the B4a data and provide related assurances in the Part B grant application. OSEP’s rationale is that Indicator B4a/b extends beyond their statutory authority and is not directly aligned with IDEA requirements. 

​Why does Indicator B4a/b matter? 

​Removing Indicator B4a/b would reduce required work at both the state and district levels. Less time spent on paperwork could translate into more time supporting students directly. 

However, ​Indicator B4a/b provides important information about how many students experience long-term removals from the classroom. While significant disproportionality (“CEIS”) calculations analyze out-of-school suspensions, Indicator B4a/b examines both out-of-school suspensions and expulsions together. This indicator becomes a tool for identifying disciplinary patterns or practices that may interfere with students’ right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 

​Indicator B10 examines the number of students identified in selected primary disability categories by federal race/ethnicity and whether district-level policies, procedures, or practices contribute to students from a particular racial or ethnic group being identified in the same disability category. OSEP has acknowledged that Indicator B10 may exceed its statutory authority because IDEA does not explicitly require analysis of primary disability by race/ethnicity. 

​Why does Indicator B10 matter?  

​Eliminating this indicator would again reduce reporting and review requirements for districts and the state, potentially allowing more time to be redirected toward supporting students. 

​​While Indicator B10 and significant disproportionality/CEIS calculations are similar, they differ in timing and consequences. B10 determinations occur annually, whereas significant disproportionality requires three consecutive years of data. Additionally, significant disproportionality carries financial implications, while B10 triggers a review of district-level policies, procedures, and practices to determine whether systemic issues are contributing to the disproportionality. 

​Proposed changes to data collections 

​Select Regulations.gov (https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2026-SCC-0661-0003) and then file 1820-0624_attachment_Directed Questions. 

​In addition to the proposed APR package, OSEP is also gathering input on potential changes to the data collected from states. Specifically, they are considering revisions to how graduation data, educational environments data, and family engagement survey data are reported. A brief summary of OSEP’s explanation and rationale is provided below.  

​​Graduation data 

​OSEP is proposing to distinguish between students with disabilities who graduate by completing state graduation requirements and those who graduate by fulfilling all requirements in their Individualized Education Program (IEP). As a reminder, Minnesota districts award the same high school diploma to all graduating students with disabilities, regardless of the pathway they use to meet graduation requirements. 

​Why does this matter? 

​​OSEP, MDE, and districts would gain clearer information about how many students use each pathway to graduate. This could allow OSEP to provide more targeted technical assistance to states, as needed, to support and improve graduation outcomes for students with disabilities. 

However, iImplementing this change would require the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and districts to invest significant time to revising existing processes to collect the new data. It is unclear whether the insights gained would be sufficient to justify the additional workload.

​OSEP has not yet clarified how graduation rates will be calculated using the new data. In Minnesota, calculating rates for the two pathways would be relatively straightforward. However, other states have multiple graduation outcomes (e.g., diplomas, certificates) and multiple pathways to reach each outcome. This raises questions about how OSEP will compare graduation rates across states when pathways and outcomes vary widely. 

​Educational Environments 

​OSEP’s position is that states, districts, and IEP team members (including parents) should consider time spent with general education peers as a full continuum, ranging from 0% to 100% of the school day. OSEP believes that collecting more detailed information about students’ educational environments will help shift mindsets so that IEP teams better understand and make use of the full range of possible time in general education settings. 

​To support this goal, OSEP is proposing to remove two of the current K–12 educational environment categories and replace them with four more granular options. The complete list of proposed K–12 educational environments is shown below, with the four newly added categories in bold.

• ​Inside regular classroom 80% or more of the school day
• ​Inside regular classroom 70-79% of the school day
• ​Inside regular classroom 60-69% of the school day
• ​Inside regular classroom 50-59% of the school day
• ​Inside regular classroom 40-49% of the school day
• ​Public separate day school facility >50% of the school day
• ​Private separate day school facility >50% of the school day
• ​Public residential facility >50% of the school day
• ​Private residential facility >50% of the school day
• ​Homebound/hospital placement 

​Why does this matter? 

IEP team members, schools, districts, MDE, and OSEP would have more detailed, fine-grained data about students’ educational environments. 

​According to data collected by MDE, IEP team participants may struggle to determine which educational environment category best aligns with a student’s needs. Introducing more granular categories may make these decisions even more challenging.

​MDE and districts would need to devote significant time to revising existing processes to collect the new data.  

​Parent and Family Engagement Survey 

​OSEP is interested in making the parent and family engagement survey more meaningful and ensuring that the results support continuous improvement of state systems. They have proposed three potential changes to the survey, each with distinct advantages and challenges. 

​How can states use the parent and family engagement survey to collect feedback from families who have pursued, or may pursue, dispute resolution, to ensure their experiences are addressed? 

Gathering feedback across a wide range of special education processes and experiences is generally valuable for understanding family perspectives. 

​​In Minnesota, the Dispute Resolution unit currently collects feedback from all participants in dispute resolution processes. Adding similar questions to the family engagement survey would require families to provide duplicate information.

​Minnesota’s dispute resolution surveys are anonymous. If MDE cannot identify which parents completed those surveys, it would be difficult to determine whether and how their feedback aligns with responses to the parent engagement survey. 

​How can the parent and family engagement survey be improved so that the data is more meaningful for all stakeholders? 

More meaningful data benefits all stakeholders and can better inform improvement efforts. 

​However, what is meaningful to one stakeholder group may not matter to another. Identifying the set of data elements that provide the most meaningful information across diverse stakeholders would require significant time and effort from MDE, time that might otherwise be spent on other activities that directly support districts. 

​How can states improve the engagement survey so that the results can be used to strengthen special education programs and improve outcomes for students? 

Feedback from parents and families can offer valuable insights that help inform improvements to special education programs and processes. 

​Across many types of surveys, responses often come primarily from individuals who are either very satisfied or very dissatisfied. This can lead to polarized results that are difficult to interpret. For example, if half of the respondents strongly support a particular practice while the other half strongly oppose it, determining an appropriate course of action can be challenging.

​Because survey responses can be mixed, limited, or difficult to generalize, they are most useful when combined with other sources of information. Integrating survey results with test data, direct conversations with families, and input from instructional staff provides a more complete picture of what changes may be needed and how to implement them. Relying solely on survey results, as OSEP’s proposal may suggest, may be shortsighted.

​Minnesota is a local control state, meaning that districts participating in the engagement survey are responsible for using the results to guide program improvement. MDE does not determine district-level changes. This creates variation in how survey findings are interpreted and applied, and limits the extent to which the state can rely on these data to drive system-level changes.