Dated April 16, 2003

Mr. Jeff Rosen, Esquire

General Counsel-Director of Policy

National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW

Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mr. Rosen:

Secretary Paige and Assistant Secretary Pasternack asked me to respond
to your inquiry about "the status of OSEP's national stakeholder group
and the results from their approximately two years of dialogue and
collaboration on improving the monitoring and enforcement of IDEA." As
you may be aware, prior to Dr. Pasternack's appointment as the Assistant
Secretary of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
(OSERS), he was an active member and participant on the stakeholder
group. Since his appointment as Assistant Secretary he has supported its
initiative to collaborate with the Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP) in its effort to focus its monitoring system on better outcomes
for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities and their
families. This effort is consistent with Secretary Paige's strategic
initiative to move the Department of Education from a culture of
compliance to a culture of accountability.

Below, please find my responses to your requests for information.

1.  OSEP's response to the recommendations offered by the national
    workgroup.

The stakeholder group (national workgroup) began meeting in 1998.
Following these meetings, OSEP shifted from a compliance monitoring
process to a continuous improvement process. The Continuous Improvement
Monitoring Process (CIMP) was characterized by: (1) partnership with
stakeholders; (2) State self-assessment; (3) the use of data to drive
decisions regarding our level of involvement in monitoring States; (4)
extensive public input and involvement in the process; (5) the provision
by OSEP of technical assistance, as needed, to States; and (6)
improvement planning that focused on root causes and outcomes rather
than process. The CIMP was successfully implemented beginning in 1998.
Since 1998 all States have submitted self-assessments and are engaged in
some aspect of Improvement Planning. In addition, consistent with input
from the stakeholder group, OSEP has begun to focus our monitoring on
those issues that have the greatest impact on infants and toddlers and
their families and children and youth with disabilities. In essence, we
recognized that OSEP has limited resources that could best be used if
our efforts are more focused and acted on that recognition.

The stakeholder group developed a Focused Monitoring concept paper that
articulated a number of Focused Monitoring principles and definitions
including: (1) areas that would serve as priorities for focused
monitoring across early intervention and special education; (2)
indicators that would constitute the priorities that are used to measure
performance within the priority areas; (3) benchmarks for determining
what constitutes non‑compliance, such as a graduation rate below a
certain level; and (4) triggers for determining when to initiate
enforcement actions and when enforcement actions or sanctions are no
longer required as well as when to initiate rewards. Subsequent to the
publication of the concept paper, OSEP participated in additional
stakeholder meetings in order to explore the concept of focusing our
monitoring. From this series of meetings OSEP obtained: (1) a better
understanding of the concept of focusing monitoring relative to OSEP
monitoring resources; and (2) a better understanding of what the
stakeholder group meant when it said that decisions should be data
driven. In these meetings, we shared with the group information about
what data are available and in what format they are available and our
assumption that any revised system must address the issue of enforcement
to ensure compliance with requirements of the Act as well as rewards. In
order to support this approach, OSEP reformatted State reported data
(618 data) to reflect how much each State in each data category (e.g.,
exiting with a diploma) varied from the national average and where the
State ranked among all the States.

In conjunction with the input from the stakeholder group, OSEP has
developed focused monitoring procedures that target resources on those
performance issues most closely related to improved results for children
with disabilities and to those States most in need of improvement on
those performance issues. OSEP will implement the Continuous Improvement
and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS), which incorporates the most
effective elements of CIMP and focused monitoring and enables OSEP to
work with States in a way that will improve both performance and
compliance.

## 

## **Accountability Strategy to Support Improvement**

OSEP will implement an integrated, four-part accountability strategy:
(1) verifying the effectiveness and accuracy of States' monitoring,
assessment, and data collection systems; (2) attending to States at high
risk for compliance, financial, and/or management failure; (3)
supporting States in assessing their performance and compliance, and in
planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement strategies; and (4)
focusing OSEP's intervention on States with low ranking performance on
critical performance indicators. This four-part accountability strategy
is aligned with the recommendations of the President's Commission on
Excellence in Special Education. It will enable OSEP to: (1) focus on a
small set of critical indicators that are based on improving results for
children with disabilities and their families; (2) support improvement
in the validity and reliability of data that OSEP and States use to
focus on performance; (3) through improvement planning, and the Annual
and Biennial Performance Report process, help ensure that accountability
for improvement rests primarily with States; (4) provide States with
needed technical assistance; and (5) focus the attention of OSEP's
Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division on the States
that need the most support to improve their performance.

1.  **Verifying the effectiveness and accuracy of States' monitoring,
    assessment and data collection systems**

Because OSEP's focused monitoring relies so heavily on State-reported
data regarding performance and compliance, it is critical to ensure that
States are reporting accurate data based upon State designed systems for
data collection/reporting and monitoring. Therefore, OSEP's primary
focus during the 2003 calendar year will be on verification of the
effectiveness of States' systems for data collection, assessment, and
monitoring. For each State, OSEP staff will analyze the accuracy of
critical information regarding States' systems for monitoring,
assessment, and data collection as this information is essential to
analyzing and improving State performance, student performance, and the
protection of child and family rights. Based on these analyses,

OSEP will select some States for on-site data verification, which will
involve some data collection activities at the State educational agency
and lead agency level.

2.  **Attending to States at high risk for compliance, financial and/or
    management failure**

In addition to its focus on States that are low ranking on critical
performance indicators (see number 4, below), OSEP will also focus its
intervention on States that it determines are at high risk for
compliance, financial, and/or management failure. These will include
primarily States with significant uncorrected audit findings.

3.  **Supporting States in assessing their performance and compliance,
    and in planning, implementing, and evaluating improvement
    strategies**

All States have completed a self-assessment of their performance and
compliance for both Part C and Part B. By July 2003, all States will
have submitted an improvement plan to OSEP. In the future, we anticipate
that States will be using their Part C Annual Performance Report and
their Part B Biennial Performance Report to update their
self-assessments and their improvement plans, including reporting on the
impact of their improvement strategies on performance and compliance.

OSEP will continue to make technical assistance available to all States
regarding self-assessment, improvement planning, and evaluation,
including reviewing and commenting on improvement plans. As part of this
process, OSEP will require that States demonstrate that they correct any
noncompliance that OSEP has identified through monitoring or that States
identify through their own self-assessment process. OSEP will target
technical assistance to support States in these efforts.

4.  **Focusing OSEP's intervention on States with low ranking
    performance on critical performance indicators**

With input from a diverse national group of stakeholders, OSEP has
developed preliminary indicators for ranking States' performance
annually. The newly-funded National Center for Special Education
Accountability Monitoring will gather stakeholder input regarding
indicators and benchmarks through its advisory board, and OSEP will use
this input to finalize the indicators, and to set benchmarks for each.
OSEP will widely disseminate these indicators and benchmarks to States
and other stakeholders.

As noted above, ensuring the accuracy and completeness of State-reported
data is essential, because OSEP will be relying so heavily on these data
in ranking States and targeting its interventions regarding performance
(i.e., child outcomes such as graduation, dropout for Part B and
identification for Part C services). For this first year of
implementation, while OSEP is focusing on determining the accuracy and
completeness of State-reported data, OSEP is reporting States'
performance on four initial indicators in rank order (see the attached
rank-ordered data tables). In the future, OSEP will be using additional
indicators such as participation and performance on assessment for Part
B and exiting for Part C. OSEP encourages States to closely examine the
rank orders and the data reported for these indicators, keeping in mind
that while a low ranking is a "red flag" that may indicate a need for
improvement, a high ranking does not necessarily mean good performance
where it is a result of poor quality data or low standards. Based on
this analysis, States should consider how to revise their improvement
plans to improve their performance. All States, including the States
with low-ranking performance, must take effective and timely steps to
ensure the correction of all noncompliance, and such correction of
noncompliance must be an urgent priority for each State.

**[Technical Assistance to Support Improvement]{.underline}**

It is important that all States work aggressively to improve results for
children with disabilities and their families. It is especially
important that States whose data show the greatest need for improvement
take prompt, evidence-based, action to achieve significant and
sustainable improvement in their performance. OSEP will make a broad
range of support available to all States to support them in:

1.  Collecting and analyzing data to enable them to identify the factors
    that will support or impede their improvement strategies;

2.  Making evidence-based decisions about the strategies that are most
    likely to result in systemic change and improved results; and

3.  Identifying the evidence of change, benchmarks, and timelines that
    will assist the State in evaluating the impact of the improvement
    strategies.

OSEP is working to make a number of resources available to States to
support their intensive improvement work. Resources under consideration
include:

1.  A web-site that focuses on research-based effective practices for
    data-based analysis of underlying causes of poor performance and the
    development and implementation of improvement strategies.

2.  Periodic conference calls and regional meetings of States focused on
    effective improvement of outcomes for children with disabilities and
    their families.

3.  Strong collaboration between OSEP, the Regional Resource Centers,
    the Monitoring Center, and other partners in the Technical
    Assistance and Dissemination Network, to ensure effective brokering
    and provision of technical assistance to States.

In order to support the focused monitoring approach, Dr. Pasternack
announced an absolute priority for the creation of a technical
assistance center to support the implementation of focused monitoring by
State Educational Agencies (SEA), Local Educational Agencies (LEA) and
Part C Lead Agencies (LA). Some of the Center\'s services are to
include:

-   Providing technical assistance to States, LEAs and Lead Agencies to
    develop effective practices in monitoring and accountability to
    implement IDEA.

-   The development of data systems that focus on data-based decision
    making.

-   Assisting States in (i) using special education data to align with
    State accountability standards and (ii) organizing and presenting
    data to decision makers and policymakers in an understandable and
    convincing manner.

-   Identifying effective practices in monitoring and accountability.

-   Working with OSEP, the Regional Resource Centers, and the States to
    effectively communicate and improve results for children through
    technical assistance, training, and dissemination of information.

-   Preparing and disseminating through a Web site and by other means
    reports and documents on research findings and related topics,
    including a comprehensive analysis of the monitoring literature

-   Providing technical assistance and support to OSEP\'s Monitoring and
    State Improvement Planning Division.

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center successfully competed
for this center and was awarded \$1 million a year for five years. Dr.
Alan Coulter is the Project Director. Based on the priority, the Center
was also responsible for establishing, maintaining, and meeting, as
needed, with an advisory committee to review and advise on the Center\'s
activities and progress. The advisory committee must consist of
individuals whose organizations or perspectives were part of the group
that worked with OSEP on focused monitoring. The committee must include,
but is not limited to, representatives of SEAs and LEAs, individuals
with disabilities, parents, educators, professional organizations,
advocacy groups, researchers, and other appropriate groups. The
committee also must include membership from otherwise underrepresented
populations.

2.  OSEP's planned next steps and the anticipated timelines with respect
    to the stakeholder group.

As noted above, the National Monitoring Center has established an
Advisory Committee that includes individuals whose organizations or
perspectives were part of the group that worked with OSEP on focused
monitoring. The National Center's Advisory Committee will fulfill the
same role as the stakeholder group and continue its work. Please note
that many of the individuals on the original stakeholder group have been
appointed as members of the National Monitoring Center's advisory group.

3.  Whether and how the stakeholder group's work will be included in
    OSEP's

> recommendations to the 108^th^ Congress as it continues to consider
> the reauthorization of IDEA.

My office is working diligently to ensure that the needs of all infants,
toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, and their families are
appropriately considered in the reauthorization of IDEA. The issue of
monitoring and enforcement will be considered, along with many other
important issues, as we proceed with reauthorization.

I hope that this information was helpful and look forward to working in
collaboration with the National Council on Disability to ensure that we
continue to focus on results for infants, toddlers, children, and youth
with disabilities, and their families rather than process. Should you
have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

> /s/

Stephanie S. Lee

Director

Office of Special Education

Programs

cc: Ruth Ryder