ÂÜÀòÊÓƵ

About Local Special Education Determinations

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to make annual determinations about the performance of each local educational agency (LEA). Under IDEA Part B Sections 616 and 642, and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. §§â€¯300.603(b) and 303.703(b), states must use the same four determination categories that the U.S. ÂÜÀòÊÓƵ, Office of Special Education Programs (USOSEP) uses when evaluating states: meets requirements, needs assistance, needs intervention, and needs substantial intervention.

Required Factors for Determinations

  1. When making annual determinations, states must consider the following factors, as outlined in USOSEP’s State  guidance (USOSEP QA 23-01, July 2023): Performance on compliance indicators in the State Performance Plan/ Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR);
  2. Valid and reliable data collection and reporting;
  3. Correction of identified noncompliance within required timelines, and
  4. Other data or information available to the State regarding the LEA’s compliance with the IDEA, including relevant audit findings.

The Office of Special Education (OSE) incorporates these requirements and considerations into New Jersey’s determination process, as described in detail below.

For the FFY 2024 determination cycle the following changes have been implemented:

Factor Naming Convention Factors are now designated A through K (previously numbered 1-11) for clarity.

Enhanced Measurement of Critical Compliance Areas (Factors A and B) The maximum points doubled from 4 to 8 on Factors A and B to provide greater differentiation in determination outcomes and to reflect the complexity of the underlying requirements. Both factors involve multi-year data analysis, review of policies and practices, and potential corrective actions that affect LEA operations and resource allocation.

Enhanced Performance Measurement for Compliance Indicators (Factors C, D and E)

Factor C (Indicator 11 Performance—Child Find)

  • Maximum points increased from 4 to 6
  • New performance tiers distinguish between LEAs reporting five (5) or fewer vs. six (6) or more students with parental consent to evaluate
  • LEAs with valid delays for all students now earn 3 points (previously Not Applicable)
  • New 0-point condition identifies extreme noncompliance

Factor D (Indicator 12 - Age 3 Transition)

  • Maximum points increased from 4 to 6
  • New performance tiers distinguish between LEAs reporting five (5) or fewer vs. six (6) or more Part C referrals
  • LEAs with valid delays for all Part C referrals now earn 3 points (previously Not Applicable)
  • New 0-point condition identifies extreme noncompliance

Factor E (Indicator 13 - Age 16 Transition)

  • New 0-point performance tier for LEAs ensuring fewer than 50% of monitored IEPs meet transition requirements
  • Language updated to emphasize LEA responsibility for ensuring compliance

Recognition of Strong Compliance Performance

Factor H: Successfully Addressed Noncompliance Within 1 Year

  • Factor renamed to reflect positive compliance outcomes
  • Now applicable to all LEAs (previously only applicable to LEAs identified for noncompliance)
  • LEAs compliant on all applicable indicators in the previous cycle earn 4 points
  • LEAs that corrected noncompliance within one year continue to earn 1 point
  • LEAs that did not correct noncompliance within one year continue to earn 0 points

This change recognizes LEAs that maintain consistent compliance and creates greater variation in determination outcomes.

Updated Points by Factor

Factor

Focus Area

FFY 2023/ RY 2025 Point Range

FFY 2024/ RY 2026 Point Range

A

(was 1)

SPP/APR Indicator 4B Performance

(Long-Term Suspensions)

0-4

0-8

B

(was 2)

SPP/APR Indicator 9 & 10 Performance

(Disproportionate Representation)

0-4

0-8

C

(was 3)

SPP/APR Indicator 11 Performance

(Child Find)

1-4

0-6

D

(was 4)

SPP/APR Indicator 12 Performance

(Age 3 Transition)

1-4

0-6

E

(was 5)

SPP/APR Indicator 13 Performance

(Age 16 Transition)

1-4

0-4

F

(was 6)

Compliance with the DLM Participation Rate Cap

0-4

0-4

G

(was 7)

SPP/APR Indicator 5A Performance

(LRE)

0-4

0-4

H

(was 8)

Successfully Addressed Noncompliance

0-1

0-4

I

(was 9)

SPP/APR Indicator 8 and/or 14 Participation

0-2

0-2

J

(was 10)

Data Quality

0-2

0-2

K

(was 11)

Timely IDEA Grant Submissions

0-2

0-2

Maximum Points Possible: 

35

50

 

Critical Requirement: Special Education Data Submission

LEAs are evaluated across 11 factors, including performance on SPP/APR indicators, data quality, and compliance timelines. Note: Failure to submit required Special Education data will result in 0 points on six factors (A, B, C, D, G, and J) across multiple Determination years. Download the complete rubric to understand how each factor is scored.

About Factor A: Significant Discrepancies in Long-Term Removals of Students with Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity (Indicator 4B)

Changes: Maximum points increased from 4 to 8

Indicator 4B examines the likelihood that students with disabilities from a specific racial/ethnic group are suspended for more than 10 days. When that likelihood, or risk, is greater than 2.5 times the risk for students with disabilities statewide, the ÂÜÀòÊÓƵ 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.

Factor Points

Points

Condition

8

The LEA met Indicator 4B minimum N- and cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year and was not identified with significant discrepancy.

2

The LEA met Indicator 4B minimum N- and cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year and was identified with significant discrepancy.

0

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 minimum N- or cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year.

 Additional Guidance

Resources

  • (IDEA Data Center)
    • (IDEA Data Center) 
  • (NYU's Metropolitan Center for Research on Equity and the Transformation of Schools)
  • (NJPBSIS)

About Factor B: Disproportionate Representation in Identification (Indicators 9 and 10)

Changes: Maximum points increased from 4 to 8

This factor addresses disproportionate representation 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.

Points

Condition

8

At least one racial or ethnic group within the LEA met Indicators 9 or 10 minimum N- and cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year and the LEA was not identified with disproportionate representation.

2

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

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 minimum N- or cell size requirements for evaluation in the most recent year.

Additional Guidance

  • ( (IDEA Data Center)
  • (IDEA Data Center)

Resources

Changes: Maximum points increased from 4 to 5; additional performance tiers added

Factor C measures LEA compliance with initial evaluation timelines. In New Jersey, evaluations must be completed, and eligibility for special education must be determined within 90 calendar days from the date of a parent’s written consent (unless an exception applies under 34 C.F.R. §§ and ).

LEAs must comply with IDEA requirements at and , and New Jersey regulations at N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4(e). Delays in completing evaluations may result in a delay or denial of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

Points

Condition

6

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

5

For LEAs that reported six (6) or more students with parental consent to evaluate: The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 95.0% to 99.9% of students.

For LEAs that reported five (5) or fewer students with parental consent to evaluate: The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for all but one (1) student.

4

The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 80.0% to 94.9% of students.

3

The LEA reported delayed IEP implementation for all students with parental consent to evaluate; all reported delays were due to valid reasons.

1

For LEAs that reported six (6) or more students with parental consent to evaluate: The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for 50.0% to 79.9% of students.

0

For LEAs that reported six (6) or more students with parental consent to evaluate: The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation for fewer than 50.0% of students.

For LEAs that reported five (5) or fewer students with parental consent: The LEA failed to meet the State-mandated timeline for two (2) or more students. 

Not Applicable

The LEA reported no students with parental consent to evaluate for special education services during the reporting period.

Additional Guidance

    Resources

    Changes: Maximum points increased from 4 to 6; additional performance tiers added.

    This factor measures whether LEAs develop and implement IEPs by a child’s third birthday for children transitioning from Early Intervention (Part C). LEAs must comply with the federal transition timeline requirement under .

    Points

    Condition

    6

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

    5

    For LEAs that reported six (6) or more Part C referrals: The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 95.0% to 99.9% of children.

    For LEAs that reported five (5) or fewer Part C referrals: The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for all but one (1) child.

    4

    The LEA met the Federal timeline for evaluation and IEP implementation for 80.0% to 94.9% of children referred from Part C.

    3

    The LEA reported delayed IEP implementation for all Part C referrals; all reported delays were due to valid reasons.

    1

    For LEAs that reported six (6) or more Part C referrals: The LEA met the State-mandated timeline for evaluation for 50.0% to 79.9% of children.

    0

    For LEAs that reported six (6) more Part C referrals: The LEA met the evaluation timeline for fewer than 50% of children.

    For LEAs that reported five (5) or fewer Part C referrals: The LEA failed to meet the evaluation timeline for two (2) or more children.

    Not Applicable

    The LEA reported no Part C referrals during the reporting period.

    Additional Guidance

    • (asha.org)

    Resources

    • (ECTA) Companion Documents:
    • (developed by NICHCY at the request of OSEP)

    Changes: Added a 0-point performance tier for extreme noncompliance

    This monitoring factor reviews IEPs aged 16 and above whose IEPs include the following 13 factors:

    • A statement of the student’s strengths, interests, and preferences
    • At least two appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that address education, training, employment, and, when appropriate, independent living
    • Documentation that postsecondary goals are updated annually
    • Measurable postsecondary goals are based on age-appropriate transition assessments
    • Transition services that include courses of study that reasonably enable the student to meet postsecondary goals
    • Related strategies and/or activities consistent with the student’s strengths, interests, and preferences to assist the student in developing or attaining postsecondary goals
    • A description of the need for consultation with other agencies, when applicable
    • The name or position of a staff member responsible for serving as liaison to postsecondary resources
    • A statement of needed interagency linkages and responsibilities
    • Transition services that reasonably enable the student to meet postsecondary goals
    • Annual goals related to the student’s transition service needs
    • Documentation shows that the student was invited to the IEP team meeting where transition services were discussed
    • When appropriate, documentation shows that representatives of participating agencies were invited to the IEP team meeting with prior consent from the parent or student who has reached the age of majority

    Points

    Condition

    4

    The LEA ensured that 100% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary components and documented student participation.

    3

    The LEA ensured that at least 95% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary components and documented student participation.

    2

    The LEA ensured that 80.0% to 94.9% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary components and documented student participation.

    1

    The LEA ensured that 50.0% to 80.0% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary components and documented student participation.

    0

    The LEA ensured that fewer than 50.0% of IEPs monitored included all required postsecondary components and documented student participation.

    Not Applicable

    The LEA was not included in this year’s monitoring cohort or does not serve students in grades 10 and above.

     Additional Guidance

    Resources

    Changes: No changes

    Factor F measures LEA compliance with the federal requirement that no more than one percent (1%) of the total number of tested students participate in alternate state assessments (). This factor evaluates participation rates in the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) alternate assessment across three content areas: English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science.

    How Participation Rates Are Calculated

    The highest rate of participation across the three content areas determines each LEA’s performance tier.

    English Language Arts and Mathematics (grades 3-11):

    Science (grades 5, 8 and 11):

    Calculations include students attending schools within the district as well as out-of-district placements.

    Points

    Condition

    4

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

    3

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

    2

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

    1

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

    0

    The LEA allowed participation in one or more content-area DLM to reach 2%.

    Not Applicable

    This factor is applicable to all LEAs.

    Additional Guidance

    Resources

    • Pre-recorded Webinar(s):

    Changes: No changes

    Factor G examines the percentage of students receiving services in the least restrictive environment (LRE) alongside their non-disabled peers for 80% or more of the school day.

    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))

    Points

    Conditions
    4

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

    3

    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

     none

    1

    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

    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

    Changes: Factor renamed and reframed; now applicable to all LEAs; LEAs compliant on all indicators in the previous year earn 4 points

    Factor H measures whether LEAs correct the noncompliance identified as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year from the date of written notification.

    Correction of Noncompliance

    When noncompliance is identified, the State verified that the LEA has:

    1. Achieved systemic compliance: The LEA is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e. achieved 100% compliance) based on a review of updated data.
    2. Corrected child-specific noncompliance: if applicable, the LEA has corrected each individual case of noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, and no outstanding corrective action exists under a State complaint or due process hearing decision for the child.

    This factor recognizes LEAs that maintain consistent compliance across all applicable indicators and measures timely correction when noncompliance is identified.

    Points

    Condition

    4

    The LEA was compliant on all applicable indicators in the previous accountability cycle.

    1

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

    0

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

    Not Applicable

    This factor is applicable to all LEAs.

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    Changes: No changes

    Factor I measures whether LEAs comply with all requests when selected to participate in Indicator 8 (Parental Involvement) or Indicator 14 (Post-School Outcomes). These are results indicators in the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR) required under 20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3).

    • Indicator 8 measures 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 measures the percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were engaged in higher education, employment, or other postsecondary education or training program within one year of leaving high school.

    When selected as part of the annual monitoring cohort, LEAs must submit all required survey data or post-school outcome information by State-established deadlines. Participation in these indicators is a required general supervision activity under IDEA.

    Points

    Condition

    2

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

    0

    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.

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    Changes: Minor wording changes only

    "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 and complete student records used to produce the State’s Child Count dataset for the reporting year.

    Points

    Condition

    2

    The LEA’s data submissions used for Child Count did not contain errors.

    1.5

    One of the LEA’s data submissions used for Child Count contained errors, but neither had an error rate that exceeded 1.5%.

    1

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

    0.5

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

    0

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

    Not Applicable

    This factor is applicable to all LEAs.

    Additional Guidance

    Resources

    •  (DaSY Center; IDEA Data Center)
    • (IDEA Data Center)
    • (USED's State Support Network)
    • (IDEA Data Center)
    • (IDEA Data Center)

    Changes: No changes

    This factor measures LEA compliance with the timelines and submission requirements related to IDEA Part B grant in the reporting year.  

    Points

    Condition

    2

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

    0

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

    Not Applicable

    This factor is applicable to all LEAs.

    Additional Guidance and Resources

    General Resources and Guidance

    Calculating and Assigning Determinations

    The ÂÜÀòÊÓƵ evaluates each LEA based on 11 performance factors (Factors A through K above). Most factors carry a maximum of 4 points; however, some have different maximum point values:

    Maximum Point Values by Factor

    ·       Factors A and B: up to 8 points each (increased from 4 to reflect the underlying complexity of the requirements)

    ·       Factors C and D: up to 6 points each (increased from 4 to better capture performance variation)

    ·       Factors E, F, and G: up to 4 points each

    ·       Factor H: up to 4 points (increased from 1; not applicable to all LEAs)

    ·       Factors 1, J and K: up to 2 points each

    LEAs earn points based on their level of compliance and performance for each factor. Higher point totals reflect stronger overall performance. Certain factors—may not be applicable to all LEAs.

    Determination Assignment Process

    LEAs are first grouped according to the total number of applicable points and then ranked based on the percentage of points earned out of the total possible. The lowest performing 5% of LEAs in each group are assigned a Needs Assistance determination.

    Determination Categories

    • Meets Requirements—6th percentile and above
    • Needs Assistance—5th percentile and below
    • Needs Intervention—5th percentile for 3 years in a row
    • Substantial Intervention—determined on a case-by-case basis

    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 FFY2024 (2026) 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:

    • Attending the Office of Special Education’s Summer Learning Institute;
    • Requesting 
    • Engaging in office hours to access individualized support and guidance, allowing LEAs to seek clarification or discuss specific concerns in a personalized setting, and

    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 FFY2024 (2026) 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 FFY2024 (2026) 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 FFY2024 (2026), 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

    Page Last Updated: 05/26/2026