Compliance Indicators

Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), states are required to examine data, including data disaggregated by race and ethnicity, to determine if significant discrepancies are occurring in the rate of long-term suspensions and expulsions of children with disabilities. If discrepancies are determined to be significant, the state must then review and, if appropriate, revise (or require the LEA to revise) its policies, procedures, and practices relating to the development and implementation of IEPs and the use of positive behavioral interventions, supports, and procedural safeguards to ensure that these policies, procedures, and practices comply with IDEA (34 C.F.R. § 300.170).

In South Carolina, a significant discrepancy is defined as follows:

4A: A rate ratio greater than 2.5 for students with disabilities in an LEA suspended out-of-school (OSS) or expelled for a cumulative total of greater than 10 days in a school year, without respect to group size.

4B: A rate ratio greater than 2.5 for students with disabilities, by each race/ethnicity, in an LEA suspended out-of-school (OSS) or expelled for a cumulative total of greater than 10 days in a school year, with minimum n size (i.e., number of students with disabilities in a specific racial/ethnic group in a LEA) of 10 students.

Districts that meet the trigger for a significant discrepancy for Indicator 4a and/or 4b will complete a two-part focused self-review.

Part 1: To ensure that non-compliance is not a result of policies, procedures, and practices, the local education agency (LEA) will conduct a self-review of their written policies, procedures, and practices.

Part 2: LEAs will conduct a self-review consisting of 5 files for students who have out-of-school suspension (OSS) for greater than 10 school days for each race/ethnicity that met the trigger to determine if the trigger was met as a result of noncompliance in the development and implementation of IEPs and/or the use of positive behavioral supports and procedural safeguards.

Potential sources of documentation for review may include, but are not limited to, meeting notices, prior written notices, discipline records, manifestation determination reviews, functional behavior assessments, behavior intervention plans, progress reports, services logs, and teacher observations and interviews, attendance records, and IEPs.

The LEAs submit the completed file reviews to the OSES. OSES staff knowledgeable in these areas will review the LEA’s responses. All districts that met the trigger will receive a notification letter as to whether or not there were any findings of noncompliance. If noncompliance is found, corrective actions will be imposed on the LEA. Within one week of the notification that noncompliance was found a corrections specialist will reach out to the LEA to offer support and clarification if necessary.

Corrections must be completed as soon as possible but no later than one year from the date on the findings letter.

If any findings of noncompliance were identified, once corrections have been completed, OSES will review subsequent district data to ensure the district is sustaining compliance. If continuing non-compliance exists, additional improvement activities may be required (e.g., technical assistance, training, focused monitoring, etc.).

Through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (IDEA), states must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of this part and with section 618(d), policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate over-identification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in §300.8. (34 C.F.R. § 300.173)

This is monitored through Indicators 9 and 10 of the State Performance Plan (SPP):

9: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups due to inappropriate identification; and

10: Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in specific disability categories due to inappropriate identification.

In South Carolina, a disproportionate representation is defined for both Indicators 9 and 10 as occurring when the local education agency (LEA) has the following:

• a risk ratio or alternate risk ratio greater than the threshold of 2.50 for the identification of students with IEPs (Indicator 9) and students with specific disabilities (Indicator 10) with respect to race/ethnicity. 

The specific racial/ethnic groups and disability categories are below:

Race/Ethnicities	Disability Categories
American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Black or African American Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Two or more races White	Autism Emotional Disturbance Intellectual Disability Specific Learning Disability Speech or Language Impairment Other Health Impairment

Beginning with this current data review for FY23 OSES is moving to a three-year process. This process includes:

• The first time the threshold of 2.5 or higher is met for one or more categories of race/ethnicity captured by (Ind. 9) and/or one or more categories of race/ethnicity and specific disability categories captured by (Ind. 10) the LEA will receive a notification letter. This is just an alert. No further action is required.
• The second consecutive year that the LEA meets the threshold of 2.5 or higher for the same race/ethnicity (Ind. 9) and the same race/ethnicity and disability category (Ind. 10) the LEA will receive notification that you have met the threshold for two consecutive years. This will be a caution with recommendations and options for professional development if the district chooses.
• The third consecutive year that the LEA meets the threshold of 2.5 or higher for the same race/ethnicity (Ind. 9) and the same race/ethnicity and disability category (Ind. 10) the LEA will receive notification that you have met the threshold for three consecutive years. This will involve requirements that include OSES reviewing LEA policies, procedures, and practices as well as OSES conducting file reviews to determine the presence of disproportionate representation in special education and related services due to inappropriate identification. If the results of this review by OSES contain individual findings of non-compliance or systemic areas of noncompliance the LEA will be required to correct the noncompliance and any appropriate professional development required.  Corrections must be completed as soon as possible but no later than one year from the date on the findings letter. OSES will review subsequent district data to ensure the district is sustaining compliance. If continuing non-compliance exists, additional improvement activities may be required (e.g., technical assistance, training, focused monitoring, etc.)
• If an LEA meets the threshold this year, and then does not meet the threshold the following year, but then meets the threshold again the next year, they will receive the year 1 notification again.
• It takes three consecutive years to trigger a review by OSES.  Professional development opportunities and other technical assistance will be available to LEAs to help avoid meeting the threshold for three consecutive years.

Indicator 11 measures the percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial evaluation. The local educational agency (LEA) must complete all assessments and other evaluation components within the 60-day timeframe.
Districts that have non-compliance for exceeding the sixty-day timeline for individual students will be notified in a findings letter by OSES and must follow the following process:

• When a timeline has been missed teams should discuss the delay and determine whether the delay amounted to a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the student at the initial eligibility meeting. If there was a denial of FAPE, determine whether compensatory services are needed to close the gap between where the student is and where he/she would have been if the timeline had been met.
• If it is not possible to have the possible denial of FAPE discussion at the initial IEP meeting or the team forgot, schedule a special review as soon as possible for the discussion.
• Document the discussion and decision as to whether there was a denial of FAPE and if so, any compensatory services that were determined necessary in the Prior Written Notice (PWN).
• If compensatory services are to be provided develop and implement a compensatory services plan.
• Provide documentation evidencing the resolution of the noncompliance such as the PWN, meeting minutes, or compensatory services plan.

Once corrections have been completed, OSES will review subsequent district data to ensure the district is sustaining compliance. If continued non-compliance exists, additional improvement activities may be required (e.g., technical assistance, training, targeted monitoring, etc.).
Districts that have systemic non-compliance (repeating pattern) for Indicator 11 will also be required to complete professional development requirements related to the systemic non-compliance.

Indicator 12 measures the 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.
Districts that have non-compliance for exceeding the IEP timeline for having an IEP in place by the third birthday will be notified in a letter and must follow this process:

• When a timeline has been missed teams should discuss the delay and determine whether the delay amounted to a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the student at the initial eligibility meeting. If there was a denial of FAPE, determine whether compensatory services are needed to close the gap between where the student is and where he/she would have been if the timeline had been met.
• If it is not possible to have the possible denial of FAPE discussion at the initial IEP meeting, schedule a special review as soon as possible for the discussion.
• Document the discussion and decision as to whether there was a denial of FAPE and if so, any compensatory services that were determined necessary in the Prior Written Notice (PWN).
• If compensatory services are to be provided develop and implement a compensatory services plan.
• Provide documentation evidencing the resolution of the noncompliance such as the PWN, meeting minutes, or compensatory services plan.
• Once corrections have been completed, OSES will review subsequent district data to ensure the district is sustaining compliance. If continuing non-compliance exists, additional improvement activities may be required (e.g., technical assistance, training, focused monitoring, etc.).

Districts that have systemic non-compliance (repeating pattern) for Indicator 11 will also be required to complete professional development requirements related to the systemic non-compliance.
Corrections must be completed as soon as possible but no later than one year from the date of the findings letter.

Indicator 13 measures the 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 course of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition service needs. The student must be invited to the IEP Team Meeting where transition services are discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of majority. (Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B))
In South Carolina it is required that a student who turns 13 within the life of the IEP have transition services included on their IEP.  However, for the purposes of Indicator 13 federal requirements, only IEPs of students aged 16 and above are reviewed for compliance purposes.
The State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) Indicator 13 data collection and review process operates on a three-year data collection cycle. All local educational agencies (LEAs) are assigned to an Indicator 13 data collection group. Each year, one group submits Indicator 13 documents for review, receives feedback, and corrects findings of noncompliance as necessary within assigned timelines. The LEAs in other data collection groups are not required to submit documents when it is not their submission year unless the LEA is continuing to correct noncompliance from a previous year’s review. The review of documents is performed by the Office of Special Education Services (OSES) using the Indicator 13 review form.

LEA Document Submission

All documents will be viewed through Enrich/EdPlanSC.  Your district will be required to send the SUNS numbers of the files to be reviewed.

SUNS number submission requirements:

• Large LEA – 20 student records
• Medium LEA – 15 student records
• Small LEA – 10 student records

Indicator 13 Corrective Activities

The required LEA corrective activities are based on the compliance percentage (% of student records that are compliant for Indicator 13) at the time of the initial data submission.

• 100% compliance: no required corrective activities
• 80-99%: must submit evidence of correction of individual findings of noncompliance
• 30-79%: must submit evidence of correction of individual findings of noncompliance, and evidence that staff who prepare Indicator 13 documents participated in OSES’ Indicator 13 virtual professional learning opportunity
• 0-29%: must submit evidence of correction of individual findings of noncompliance, evidence that staff who prepare Indicator 13 documents participated in OSES’ Indicator 13 virtual professional learning opportunity, and that designated staff participated in an OSES approved targeted post- secondary transition professional learning opportunity designed to meet the technical assistance needs of the LEA.

Timelines for 2024-2025 Indicator 13 Data Collection, OSES, Review, and Corrective Activities

• 10/21/24 – OSES notifies LEAs that will be reviewed
• 11/6/24 – LEA data submission (SUNS numbers)
• 1/13/25 – OSES issues data review reports
• 1/20/25 - 5/2/25 – Corrections submission window
• 6/6/25 – OSES completes review of corrections
• 6/30/25 OSES provides feedback of corrections
• 6/30/26 – All corrections must be completed

OSES Indicator 13 Review Form