[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 58 (Wednesday, March 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16778-16781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No. ED-2013-OSERS-015]
Request for Information on the Use of Results Data in Making
Determinations Under Sections 616(d)(2) and 642 of the Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S.
Department of Education.
ACTION: Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is requesting
stakeholder input on how best to use results data (e.g., performance on
assessments, graduation rates, and early childhood outcomes) in its
accountability system under the IDEA. We believe that the Department
must provide greater support to States' efforts to improve results for
infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities (children with
disabilities). We need to ensure that States focus not only on
complying with provisions of the law, but also on improving results for
children with disabilities.
DATES: Responses must be received by April 25, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment
period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please
submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket
ID and the term ``IDEA Determinations including Results'' at the top of
your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``Are you new to this site?''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments, address them to Larry Ringer, Attention:
IDEA Determinations RFI, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., room 4032, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all comments
received from members of the public (including comments submitted by
mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available on the Internet.
Submission of Proprietary Information: Given the subject matter,
some comments may include proprietary information as it relates to
confidential commercial information. The Freedom of Information Act
defines ``confidential commercial information'' as information the
disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause substantial
competitive harm. You may wish to request that we not disclose what you
regard as confidential commercial information.
To assist us in making a determination on your request, we
encourage you to identify any specific information in your comments
that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the
information by page and paragraph numbers.
This Request for Information (RFI) is issued solely for information
and planning purposes and is not a request for proposals (RFP), a
notice inviting applications (NIA), or a promise to issue an RFP or
NIA. This RFI does not commit the Department to contract for any supply
or service whatsoever. Further, the Department is not now seeking
proposals and will not accept unsolicited proposals. The Department
will not pay for any information or administrative costs that you may
incur in responding to this RFI.
If you do not respond to this RFI, you may still apply for future
contracts and grants. The Department posts RFPs on the Federal Business
Opportunities Web
[[Page 16779]]
site (www.fbo.gov). The Department announces grant competitions in the
Federal Register (www.gpo.gov/fdsys). It is your responsibility to
monitor these sites to determine whether the Department issues an RFP
or NIA after considering the information received in response to this
RFI.
The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI
become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Ringer, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4032, Potomac Center Plaza,
Washington, DC 20202-2600. Telephone: (202) 245-7496.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In the 2004 reauthorization of the IDEA, Congress recognized the
importance of focusing on positive educational and early intervention
outcomes for children with disabilities. IDEA requires the primary
focus of Federal and State monitoring to be on: (1) Improving
educational results and functional outcomes for all children with
disabilities covered under the IDEA; and (2) ensuring that States meet
the program requirements. In particular, Congress placed an emphasis on
those requirements that are most closely related to improving
educational and early intervention results for eligible children with
disabilities.
To date, however, the Department's primary focus of monitoring has
been on States' compliance with substantive and procedural requirements
and whether States showed improvement in the compliance data reported
in their State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Reports (SPP/APRs).
Unfortunately, we have not seen significant improvement in results for
children with disabilities, e.g., performance on assessment, graduation
rate, and early childhood outcomes.\1\ In order to improve results for
children with disabilities, we need to balance the focus of our
accountability system on both ensuring compliance and improving results
for children with disabilities, consistent with the IDEA mandates
described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The SPPs/APRs for Part B and Part C include both compliance
and results indicators. For Part B, the results indicators address
graduation rates, drop-out rates, statewide assessment (percentage
of districts meeting adequate yearly progress or annual measurable
objectives for the disability subgroup, participation in
assessments, and proficiency on assessments), significant
discrepancy in suspension/expulsion rates, educational environments
for school-aged and preschool, early childhood outcomes, parent
participation, post-school outcomes, resolution sessions, and
mediation. For Part C, the results indicators include service
settings, early childhood outcomes, family outcomes, percentage of
infants and toddlers receiving Part C services, resolution sessions,
and mediation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve this balance, the Department, through the Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP), a component of the Office of Special
Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), is reconceptualizing its
IDEA accountability system. This reconceptualized system, Results
Driven Accountability (RDA), will support States in improving results
for children with disabilities, while continuing to assist States in
ensuring compliance with the IDEA's requirements.
In redesigning its accountability system, OSEP is using the
following core principles:
1. The RDA system is being developed in partnership with our
stakeholders.
2. The RDA system is transparent and understandable to States and
the general public, especially individuals with disabilities and their
families.
3. The RDA system drives improved outcomes for all children and
youth with disabilities regardless of their age, disability, race/
ethnicity, language, gender, socioeconomic status, or location.
4. The RDA system ensures the protection of the individual rights
of each child or youth with a disability and their families, regardless
of his/her age, disability, race/ethnicity, language, gender,
socioeconomic status, or location.
5. The RDA system includes differentiated incentives, supports, and
interventions based on each State's unique strengths, progress,
challenges, and needs.
6. The RDA system encourages States to direct their resources to
where they can have the greatest positive impact on outcomes and the
protection of individual rights for all children and youth with
disabilities, while minimizing State burden and duplication of effort.
7. The RDA system is responsive to the needs and expectations of
the ultimate consumers (i.e., children and youth with disabilities and
their families).
OSEP will implement the RDA in accordance with the IDEA
requirements. OSEP's design for the RDA system includes three major
components: (1) The State Performance Plan (SPP)/Annual Performance
Report (APR); (2) annual State determinations; and (3) differentiated
monitoring and support.
As part of the first component, each State has, since 2005, had in
place an SPP for IDEA Part B and an SPP for IDEA Part C, establishing
measurable and rigorous targets for indicators under statutory priority
areas, and those indicators include both compliance indicators and
results indicators. Each State submits annually to the Secretary an APR
for IDEA Part B and an APR for IDEA Part C, reporting on the State's
progress in meeting those targets. On April 15, 2013, the Department
published in the Federal Register two separate information collection
notices proposing changes to the IDEA Part B and the IDEA Part C SPP/
APR for the period of Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2013 through FFY 2018
(78 FR 22251 and 78 FR 22253, available at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-15/pdf/2013-08703.pdf and www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-15/pdf/2013-08705.pdf, respectively.
In those notices, the Department proposed eliminating unnecessary
reporting requirements, including the requirement that States report on
improvement activities for each indicator. Instead, the Department
proposed to include a new qualitative indicator, the State Systemic
Improvement Plan (SSIP) in each State's SPP/APR for IDEA Part B and
SPP/APR for IDEA Part C. This comprehensive improvement plan would
include an analysis of relevant data and a plan, based on that data
analysis, to focus on improving a State-selected educational or early
intervention outcomes for children with disabilities in a way that is
aligned with a State's efforts to improve outcomes for all children. In
working to finalize the IDEA Part B and Part C SPP/APR information
collections, the Department has considered all of the comments
received.
The second component of RDA is the annual State determination
process. The Secretary has, since 2007, made annual State
determinations based on information provided by a State in its SPP/APR,
information obtained through monitoring visits, and any other publicly
available information. The Secretary will continue, as required by
IDEA, to make annual determinations; however, the Department is, as
part of RDA, in the process of changing how it makes determinations to
provide a greater focus on results. As required by the IDEA, in making
determinations, the Secretary finds that a State, for IDEA Part B and
for IDEA Part C:
1. Meets the requirements and purposes of the IDEA;
[[Page 16780]]
2. Needs assistance in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
(``needs assistance'');
3. Needs intervention in implementing the requirements of the IDEA
(``needs intervention''); or
4. Needs substantial intervention in implementing the requirements
of the IDEA (``needs substantial intervention'').
When a State is determined to be in ``needs assistance'' for two or
more consecutive years, ``needs intervention'' for three or more
consecutive years, or ``needs substantial intervention'', the Secretary
takes enforcement action and has discretion to determine the specific
type of enforcement action(s) to take.
Consistent with our authority in sections 616(d)(2) and 642 of the
IDEA, in 2013, OSEP began redesigning the annual determinations
process. In calendar year 2007 (the first year that the Department made
determinations under the IDEA) through calendar year 2013, the
Department primarily based its determinations on data provided in
response to compliance indicators.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These compliance indicators include, for IDEA Part B:
Noncompliance related to suspension and expulsion, disproportionate
representation of racial and ethnic groups in special education and
related services, and in specific disability categories, that is the
result of inappropriate identification, timely initial evaluations,
timely transition from IDEA Part C to IDEA Part B, secondary
transition requirements, and timely correction of noncompliance. For
Part C, they include: Timely initiation of early intervention
services, timely evaluation, assessment and individualized family
service plan meetings, timely transitions from Part C, and timely
correction of noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, OSEP continued to make determinations based on compliance
data, but for the first time used a Compliance Matrix that provided a
better accounting of the totality of the State's compliance data. The
Compliance Matrix utilizes a score, ranging from zero to two points,
for each of the compliance indicators and for several other factors
related to compliance (see ``How the Department Made Determinations''
at http://www2.ed.gov/fund/data/report/idea/sppapr.html). Using the
cumulative possible number of points as the denominator, and using the
actual points the State received in the scoring under these factors as
the numerator, the Compliance Matrix reflected a percentage score that
the Department used to make each State's 2013 determination. OSEP made
this revision to ensure that, unlike the determinations made in prior
years, a State would not be determined to ``need intervention'' based
solely on low performance under, or the lack of valid and reliable data
for, a single IDEA indicator. As noted above, this approach took into
account the totality of a State's compliance and provided transparency
about how we reached each State's determination. We recognize, however,
that while this matrix approach was an improvement in the
determinations process, we also need to include results data as a
significant part of the determinations process.
For 2014, OSEP will, consistent with our authority in sections
616(d)(2) and 642 of the IDEA, include a Results Matrix, similar, and
in addition, to the Compliance Matrix, to focus on both compliance and
results data in the annual determination process. Relevant data
reported by States and other publicly available data will be reflected
in the matrices, with each data element receiving a score between zero
and two and then combining all of the points from both matrices. Using
the cumulative possible number of points from both matrices as the
denominator, and using the total number of actual points the State
received in the scoring under the individual factors as the numerator,
the State's 2014 determination will be based on the percentage score
from both matrices.
OSEP will take enforcement actions under Part B and Part C of the
IDEA based on those underlying compliance data, results data, or a
combination of the two. However, in the first two years of using
results data in determinations, OSEP does not plan to take enforcement
action based on results data under either IDEA Part B or C that would
have fiscal consequences for a State. (While the Department must take
one of the statutorily-specified enforcement actions with States that
are ``Needs Assistance'' for two or more consecutive years, or ``Needs
Intervention'' for three or more consecutive years, the Department has
discretion in choosing among specified enforcement actions, which
include actions that do not have fiscal consequences.)
We are considering using the following results data \3\ in making
determinations, including examining a State's progress over time:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The State must not report to the public or the Secretary any
information on performance that would result in the disclosure of
personally identifiable information about individual children. See
IDEA section 616(b)(2)(C)(iii). Therefore, OSERS will not use
personally identifiable data when making determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For Part B, data related to:
a. Participation in and proficiency on assessments (reported
publicly through either statewide assessments or the National
Assessment of Educational Progress) in reading/language arts and math,
b. Rates of students graduating with a regular diploma and/or
c. Postschool outcomes.
2. For Part C, data related to:
a. Early childhood outcomes, and/or
b. Family outcomes.
The third component of RDA is differentiated monitoring and
support. In implementing differentiated monitoring and support, OSEP
will use results data and other information about a State to determine
the appropriate intensity, focus, and nature of the oversight and
support that each State will receive as part of RDA. In providing
differentiated support, OSEP will consider each State's need in
relation to the development and implementation of its SSIP.
Context for Responses and Information Requested
Throughout the process of developing RDA, the Department has both
provided information to the public, and sought input from interested
stakeholders, consistent with the core principles outlined above. We
have sought input from stakeholders in a variety of ways, including:
1. Blog posts on the Department's Web site inviting input from the
public on a variety of topics including the Core Principles and one
approach for using results data in determinations (http://www.ed.gov/blog/2012/07/results-driven-accountability-effort/);
2. Meetings and conference calls with stakeholders, including State
personnel, child and family advocacy groups, professional
organizations, researchers, and technical assistance providers to
solicit input regarding the opportunities and barriers related to
shifting to a more results focused monitoring; and
3. Working with the National Center on Educational Outcomes and the
Center on Early Childhood Outcomes to examine options for what results
data to consider in making determinations, and how to use those data as
part of the determinations process.
The Assistant Secretary for OSERS invites States, local educational
agencies (LEAs), early intervention service (EIS) programs and
providers, parents, and other stakeholders to provide input on how the
Department should use results data, in combination with compliance
data, to make determinations under section 616(d)(2) and 642 of the
IDEA in 2014 and subsequent years. We are particularly interested in
feedback on the following:
1. How should the Department use results data such as assessment
data, graduation data and/or postschool outcomes data in making
determinations under Part B of the
[[Page 16781]]
IDEA? For any suggestion, please explain why and how the Department
could use the data in a valid, reliable, and equitable manner in making
determinations.
2. How should the Department use results data such as early
childhood outcomes data and/or family outcomes data in making
determinations under Part C of the IDEA? For any suggestion, please
explain why and how the Department could use the data in a valid,
reliable, and equitable manner in making determinations.
3. Are there any additional or different types of results data,
including data on assessments to measure proficiency in reading/
language arts and math, or other results data that the Department
should/could consider using in the IDEA Part B determinations process?
For any suggestion, please explain why and how the Department could use
the data in a valid, reliable, and equitable manner in making
determinations.
4. Are there any additional or different types of results data that
the Department should/could consider using in the IDEA Part C
determinations process? For any suggestion, please explain why and how
the Department could use the data in a valid, reliable, and equitable
manner in making determinations.
To ensure better results for children with disabilities, the
Department expects all components of the RDA system to be aligned with
States' efforts to improve outcomes for all children with and without
disabilities. To meet this goal, we encourage stakeholders to provide
suggestions for using results data in a manner that is equitable and
transparent. You may provide comments in any convenient format (i.e.,
bullet points, charts, graphs, paragraphs, etc.) and may also provide
relevant information that is not responsive to a particular question
but may nevertheless be helpful.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) upon request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1416 and 1442.
Dated: March 20, 2014.
Michael K. Yudin,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services.
[FR Doc. 2014-06730 Filed 3-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P