Estimated reading time: 15 minutes
SPP/APR stands for the State Performance Plan and Annual Performance Report that every state submits to the U.S. Department of Education under section 616 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The plan sets targets on federal indicators, the report shows each year whether the state met them, and the Department uses both to decide whether each state “meets requirements.” This guide covers the legal basis, the 18 Part B indicators, how determinations are made, the 2026 results, the determinations states make for districts, significant disproportionality, and what directors and superintendents do with the data.
Table of contents
Executive Summary
On June 18, 2026, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) released its 2026 determinations, based on the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2024 SPP/APR. Of the 60 states and entities funded under IDEA Part B, 21 met requirements, 33 needed assistance (30 of them for two or more consecutive years), 6 needed intervention and none needed substantial intervention.
The state rating is built from district data. States must rate every district each year, publish each district’s performance against the state targets, and see that noncompliance is corrected within one year. For a superintendent, the SPP/APR is a public scorecard on evaluation timelines, transition plans, discipline and results.
Key Takeaways
- A six-year plan and a yearly report: the SPP is reviewed at least every six years; the APR is submitted every February.
- Eighteen Part B indicators: results indicators measure outcomes, compliance indicators measure whether a requirement was met.
- Determinations weigh results and compliance equally: 80% or more on OSEP’s matrix generally means “meets requirements.”
- 2026 results: 21 meets requirements, 33 needs assistance, 6 needs intervention.
- States rate every district each year and publish district performance.
- Significant disproportionality is a separate test that can require a district to reserve 15% of its IDEA Part B funds.
What Is the SPP/APR?
The SPP/APR is the accountability report through which each state shows the U.S. Department of Education how it implements IDEA: a performance plan with targets on federal indicators, and an annual report on progress toward those targets, for the state and for each district.
The statute, 20 U.S.C. 1416, sets three monitoring priorities: a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment; general supervision, including child find, monitoring, resolution sessions, mediation and transition services; and disproportionate representation of racial and ethnic groups resulting from inappropriate identification. The regulations add the working rules:
- Targets: measurable and rigorous targets for each indicator, with the plan reviewed at least once every six years (34 CFR 300.601).
- Annual report: the state reports its performance to the Secretary each year (34 CFR 300.602).
- Public district reports: the state reports each district’s performance against the targets no later than 120 days after submitting the APR, and posts the plan and reports on its website.
- Privacy: no report may identify individual children or rest on data too small to be reliable.
The SPP/APR Cycle
- February: the state submits its APR; the FFY 2024 Part B report was due February 2, 2026.
- Before determinations: OSEP reviews the data and posts its response in its online reporting tool.
- June: the Department issues determinations; 2026 letters went out on June 18.
- Within 120 days of submission: the state publishes district performance.
- During the year: the state makes district determinations, issues findings and verifies correction.
FFY 2024 data cover the 2024-25 school year for indicators such as assessment participation, while the discipline indicators use 2023-24 data.
SPP/APR Indicators for Part B
The list below follows the indicator text in the Part B SPP/APR instructions and measurement used for the FFY 2024 submission, as published in state reports for that year.
| Indicator | What it measures | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Graduation | Youth with IEPs exiting with a regular high school diploma | Results |
| 2. Drop out | Youth with IEPs exiting by dropping out | Results |
| 3. Statewide assessments | 3A participation; 3B proficiency on the regular assessment; 3C proficiency against alternate standards; 3D gap with all students | Results |
| 4. Suspension and expulsion | 4A districts with a significant discrepancy in removals of more than 10 days; 4B the same by race or ethnicity, linked to noncompliant policies or practices | 4A results, 4B compliance |
| 5. Educational environments, ages 5 (in kindergarten) to 21 | Inside the regular class 80% or more of the day, less than 40%, and separate settings | Results |
| 6. Preschool environments | Regular early childhood program, separate settings, services at home | Results |
| 7. Preschool outcomes | Gains in social-emotional skills, knowledge and skills, and behaviors to meet needs | Results |
| 8. Parent involvement | Parents reporting that schools facilitated their involvement | Results |
| 9. Disproportionate representation | Districts with disproportionate representation that results from inappropriate identification | Compliance |
| 10. Disproportionate representation in specific disability categories | The same, by disability category | Compliance |
| 11. Child find | Initial evaluations completed within 60 days of consent, or the state’s timeline | Compliance |
| 12. Early childhood transition | Children referred from Part C with an IEP by their third birthday | Compliance |
| 13. Secondary transition | IEPs of youth 16 and older with the required postsecondary goals and transition services | Compliance |
| 14. Post-school outcomes | Former students in higher education, training or employment within one year | Results |
| 15. Resolution sessions | Hearing requests resolved through resolution session agreements | Results |
| 16. Mediation | Mediations that resulted in agreements | Results |
| 17. State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) | A multi-year plan to improve one state-identified measurable result | Results |
| 18. General supervision | Timely correction of noncompliance found through all parts of the state’s system | Compliance |
Several indicators have their own guides on this site: evaluation timelines in special education evaluation (Indicator 11), the transition requirements in transition IEP goals (Indicator 13), alternate standards in alternate assessment (Indicator 3C), and long removals in manifestation determination (Indicator 4).
Indicator 18 and the Next SPP/APR Package
Indicator 18 was added with the FFY 2023 APR submitted in February 2025, according to the Minnesota Department of Education’s indicator guide (June 2026), which adds that OSEP plans a revised SPP/APR for FFY 2025 data, due in 2027. The Department published notices on revising the Part B collection on March 23 and September 15, 2026, with comments due October 15 (Federal Register). Check the final measurement table before setting local targets.
How Annual Determinations Are Made
Each year the Secretary places every state in one of four categories, based on the APR, monitoring and other public information (34 CFR 300.603). OSEP’s method for 2026 is described in How the Department Made Determinations in 2026: Part B (revised June 18, 2026), its Results Driven Accountability (RDA) matrix:
- Compliance matrix: Indicators 4B, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 18, correction of prior findings, timely and accurate data, timely complaint and hearing decisions, and longstanding noncompliance, each scored 0, 1 or 2.
- Results matrix: fourteen elements, including statewide assessment participation and National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) participation and scores in grades 4 and 8, dropout and graduation.
- RDA percentage: 50% of the results score plus 50% of the compliance score.
| Determination | 2026 threshold | Federal action |
|---|---|---|
| Meets requirements | RDA percentage of at least 80%, unless specific conditions were imposed on the last three grants | None required |
| Needs assistance | At least 60% but under 80% | After two consecutive years: technical assistance, directed use of state set-aside funds, or high-risk grantee status |
| Needs intervention | Under 60% | After three or more consecutive years: a corrective action plan, a compliance agreement, withholding 20% to 50% of state set-aside funds, or other enforcement |
| Needs substantial intervention | Not used in 2026 | At any time: recovery or withholding of funds, or referral for enforcement |
Enforcement rules are in 34 CFR 300.604; a state facing either intervention category gets notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
2026 IDEA Determinations
| Part B determination | Number | States and entities |
|---|---|---|
| Meets requirements | 21 | Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Republic of the Marshall Islands, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming |
| Needs assistance, one year | 3 | Maryland, Minnesota, North Dakota |
| Needs assistance, two or more consecutive years | 30 | Includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Tennessee and Washington |
| Needs intervention | 6 | Bureau of Indian Education, District of Columbia, Maine, New Mexico, New York, Vermont |
| Needs substantial intervention | 0 | None |
Source: OSEP, 2026 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA (June 18, 2026). For Part C, 22 of 56 entities met requirements. The Advocacy Institute counted 4 states whose rating improved and 7 whose rating dropped. Under the June 2026 agreements between the Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), annual determinations are among the functions HHS is to manage; see special education funding for the 2026 federal changes.
Local Determinations: How States Rate Districts
The same structure applies one level down. Under 34 CFR 300.600, each state must:
- Determine each district’s performance annually, using the four federal categories.
- Enforce, with tools that include technical assistance, conditions on funding, corrective action plans and withholding of funds.
- Monitor three priority areas with quantifiable indicators: FAPE in the least restrictive environment, general supervision and disproportionate representation.
- Ensure correction of noncompliance as soon as possible and no later than one year after the state identifies it.
The regulation names the categories, not the method, so criteria for district determinations differ from state to state; read your state’s guidance. States also publish district data: Minnesota, for example, updates its Special Education District Profiles each year by April 1.
Significant Disproportionality
Significant disproportionality is a separate, annual calculation required by 34 CFR 300.646 and 300.647. For each district and each of seven racial and ethnic groups, the state computes a risk ratio in 14 categories:
- Identification: all disabilities, and six categories (intellectual disability, specific learning disability, emotional disturbance, speech or language impairment, other health impairment, autism).
- Placement: regular class less than 40% of the day; separate schools and residential facilities.
- Discipline: out-of-school suspensions and expulsions of 10 days or fewer and of more than 10; in-school suspensions of 10 days or fewer and of more than 10; total removals.
The state sets the risk ratio threshold, minimum cell size and minimum n-size with stakeholder advice; a cell size up to 10 and an n-size up to 30 are presumed reasonable. A state may delay identification until a district has exceeded the threshold for up to three consecutive years without reasonable progress.
| Measure | What triggers it | Consequence for the district |
|---|---|---|
| Indicator 4B | Significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity in removals of more than 10 days, with noncompliant policies or practices | Review and revision of policies; correction of noncompliance |
| Indicators 9 and 10 | Disproportionate representation that results from inappropriate identification | Finding of noncompliance and correction |
| Significant disproportionality | Risk ratio above the state threshold in any of the 14 categories | Review and, if needed, revision of policies, public reporting of revisions, and reserving 15% of Part B for comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CEIS) |
Comprehensive CEIS may serve children from age 3 through grade 12, including children with disabilities, and must address the factors that contributed to the disproportionality.
Federal Actions in 2025 and 2026
- State application: the Department proposed in August 2025, and submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval in January 2026, a revision that removes the significant disproportionality data collection from the Annual State Application under Part B (Federal Register, January 9, 2026).
- Regulations: the Department’s regulatory agenda lists a planned proposed rule to amend the 2016 significant disproportionality regulations (RIN 1820-AB84), scheduled in the 2026 agenda for August 2026, according to K-12 Dive. No proposed rule had appeared in the Federal Register as of late October 2026.
- In force: 34 CFR 300.646 and 300.647 remain in the eCFR as of October 26, 2026, and IDEA itself still requires states to collect and examine these data (20 U.S.C. 1418(d)).
Reading Your District’s SPP/APR Data
| Indicator | Local owner | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|---|
| 11. Child find | Evaluation coordinator | Consent date, evaluation date, reason for any delay |
| 13. Secondary transition | High school case managers | Transition assessments, postsecondary goals, invitations to the student and agencies |
| 4A and 4B. Discipline | Principals and the special education director | Removal logs by student and by race or ethnicity |
| 5. Environments | Campus leaders and IEP teams | Time in the regular class as written in each IEP |
| 8. Parent involvement | Family engagement staff | Survey response rates by school |
| 18. General supervision | Compliance lead | Each finding, the correction, and the date verified |
Funding and Staffing
States must spend part of their IDEA state-level set-aside on monitoring, enforcement, complaint investigation and mediation (34 CFR 300.704(b)(3)), and a state that needs intervention for three years can lose 20% to 50% of those funds. For districts, the largest financial consequence is the 15% reservation for comprehensive CEIS. Compliance indicators also depend on staff: with 45 states reporting special education teacher shortages in 2024-25 (Learning Policy Institute, 2026), evaluation and IEP review timelines depend on staff availability.
Common Mistakes District Leaders Make
- Reading the SPP/APR as a state matter. Every indicator is a sum of district data.
- Correcting the file, not the practice. Indicator 18 tracks whether noncompliance is actually corrected.
- Counting only formal suspensions when removal data feed both Indicator 4 and the disproportionality calculation.
- Ignoring risk ratios below the threshold. Three years of rising ratios can end in identification.
- Treating Indicator 13 as paperwork. It checks the substance of the transition plan.
- Waiting for the public report instead of checking data before the state submits.
Recommended Actions
- Pull your district’s latest determination and public report, and share both with the board.
- Name an owner for each compliance indicator with a monthly check of open cases.
- Track evaluation timelines weekly against your state’s deadline.
- Review a sample of transition IEPs each semester against the Indicator 13 items.
- Calculate your own risk ratios for the 14 categories before the state does.
- Close every finding with evidence of a changed practice, dated and filed.
Questions District Leaders Should Ask
- What was our district determination last year, and which indicators drove it?
- How many initial evaluations missed the timeline, and why?
- Which racial or ethnic group has our highest risk ratio, in which category, and for how many years?
- Are any findings of noncompliance still open after nine months?
Frequently Asked Questions
What is discipline disproportionality?
It means students with disabilities from one racial or ethnic group are disciplined at markedly higher rates than others. IDEA addresses it twice: Indicator 4B flags districts with a significant discrepancy by race or ethnicity in removals of more than 10 days, and the significant disproportionality rule compares risk ratios for suspensions, expulsions and total removals with a state threshold. Both can require policy revisions.
What is significant disproportionality?
It is a finding that a district identifies, places or disciplines students of one racial or ethnic group at a rate above a state threshold, compared with all other students. States calculate risk ratios each year in 14 categories (34 CFR 300.647). A district found significantly disproportionate must review its policies, publicly report revisions and reserve 15% of its IDEA Part B funds for comprehensive CEIS.
What are the SPP/APR indicators?
They are the federal measures each state reports on under IDEA. Part B has 18: graduation, drop out, statewide assessments, suspension and expulsion, school-age and preschool environments, preschool outcomes, parent involvement, two disproportionate representation indicators, child find, early childhood transition, secondary transition, post-school outcomes, resolution sessions, mediation, the State Systemic Improvement Plan and general supervision. Part C, for infants and toddlers, has its own set.
What is State Performance Plan Indicator 11?
Indicator 11, child find, is the percentage of children evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for an initial evaluation, or within the state’s own timeline if it has one. It is a compliance indicator with a 100% target. Data must use actual days, not averages, and states report the reasons for delays. Timelines are explained in our guide to special education evaluation.
What is State Performance Plan Indicator 13?
Indicator 13 is the percentage of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above whose IEP includes measurable postsecondary goals based on age-appropriate transition assessment, transition services and a course of study, and annual goals tied to those needs, with evidence that the student and, with consent, relevant agencies were invited. Our guide to transition IEP goals walks through each requirement.
When are IDEA determination letters released?
The Department issues them once a year, after reviewing the APRs states submit in February. The 2026 letters, based on FFY 2024 data, were released on June 18, 2026, with a fact sheet listing every state’s determination and a document explaining the scoring. Each letter comes with the state’s matrix, and states often post both; Delaware, for example, posted the 2026 scoring document.
Related Resources
- Special Education Funding
- Special Education Evaluation
- Transition IEP Goals
- Alternate Assessment
- Manifestation Determination
- IEP Meeting Guide
Conclusion
The SPP/APR turns IDEA’s requirements into numbers a state must report and a public can read. Its indicators are built from district records: evaluation dates, transition plans, removal logs, placements and survey responses. Districts that own each indicator locally, correct findings in practice and watch their risk ratios before the state does will see few surprises in their determination.
Sources: 20 U.S.C. 1416, Monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement; OSEP, 2026 Determination Letters on State Implementation of IDEA (June 18, 2026); U.S. Department of Education, How the Department Made Determinations under Section 616(d) of IDEA in 2026: Part B (revised June 18, 2026), via the Delaware Department of Education; Part B SPP/APR for FFY 2024 with OSEP instructions and measurement, Northern Mariana Islands Public School System; Minnesota Department of Education, Part B State Performance Plan Indicator Guide (June 2026); Federal Register, IDEA Part B SPP/APR information collection (September 15, 2026); Federal Register, Annual State Application under Part B (January 9, 2026); Unified Agenda, Equity in IDEA, RIN 1820-AB84; The Advocacy Institute, How the States Stack Up: 2026 IDEA State Determinations (June 23, 2026); Learning Policy Institute, An Overview of Teacher Shortages: 2026 (July 13, 2026). Sections of 34 CFR Part 300 are linked where they are cited.
Join the 2027 Special Education Pilot
Results indicators such as graduation and assessment proficiency move only when students get enough practice on their IEP goals between lessons, and 1-on-1 time with an adult is the scarcest resource in most schedules. Telo AI is being adapted for students with IEPs: patient, 1-on-1 practice aligned to each student’s IEP goals, including speaking practice. We are inviting districts to shape it with us in a 2027 pilot.
Apply to pilot Telo AI in your Special Education program
Found this guide useful?
Preferred sources show up more often in your Google results, including AI Overviews.