The National Association of State Directors of Special Education
(NASDSE) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed survey
referenced above. Our comments that follow specifically address the
proposed survey of state directors of special education.

Our comments that follow specifically address the proposed survey of
state directors of special education.

We note that the purpose of this survey, which is mandated by IDEA 2004,
is to measure: (1) progress in the implementation of IDEA 2004; and (2)
the relative effectiveness of the law in achieving its purpose. We
question whether the proposed questions adequately address either of
these purposes.

The survey addresses the following topical areas: (1) significant
disproportionality; (2) response to intervention; (3)
certification/licensing of personnel, including highly qualified teacher
status; (4) parent involvement; (5)standards-based IEPs (not academic
standards as the title of this section would suggest); (5) use of test
accommodations; and (6) dispute resolution. These areas all address new
aspects of the law and presumably that is why they have been chosen for
this survey.

However, of the six topics noted above, three of them (e.g., significant
disproportionality, parent involvement and dispute resolution) are
addressed in much detail in each state's annual performance report
(APR). We believe that it is an unnecessary duplication of effort to ask
states to report this information in a survey from the IES when its
sister agency within the U.S. Department of Education, the Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP), is already collecting it. We
therefore urge the IES to delete these questions and refer to the APRs
to obtain this information. We also note that one of the purposes of
IDEA 2004 was to reduce the paperwork burden on state and local
education agencies and special education personnel in schools. We
suggest that the IES to include questions on this particular topic in
the survey.

Of the questions related to standards-based IEPs, we note that NASDSE's
Project Forum, an OSEP-funded project, prepared several documents on
this issue. We suggest that the IES review these documents,
particularly, *Standard Based IEPs: Implementation in Selected States*,
which can be found on our Project Forum's website at
[www.projectforum.org](http://www.projectforum.org/) and revise these
questions based on the information that has already been gathered rather
than duplicating this effort that is just two years old.

With respect to the second purpose of the survey, we see little in the
proposed questions that address the academic outcomes of students with
disabilities. For example, there are no questions related to how well
students with disabilities are actually performing in school. There are
no questions related to improvements in either graduation or declines in
dropout rates. There are no questions regarding the proficiency of
students with disabilities under the No Child Left Behind Act. States
are collecting data about graduation and dropout rates as part of their

APRs. This information can be accessed by the IES and incorporated into
this initiative as these two data points would be useful in analyzing
the success of IDEA.

In sum, we find much of this survey to be duplicative of other
collection efforts currently underway by the U.S. Department of
Education and of little value in ascertaining how well students with
disabilities are actually faring in school.

At a minimum, we urge that you revamp this proposed survey to eliminate
the questions that overlap with the APRs, but also urge you to re-craft
the survey to look at outcomes of students with disabilities.

\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--

ED RESPONSE:

ED thanks the National Association of State Directors of Special
Education, Inc. (NASDSE) and its members for the thorough letter on the
data collection package.

Two main themes emerge in the NASDSE letter regarding the National
Assessment Implementation Study (NAIS) Pending Collection #3753. The
first theme involves the purpose and content of the IDEA National
Assessment and NAIS study areas. This includes the intent of the study
and the associated research questions, the topic areas included, and the
lack of questions that address the academic outcomes of students with
disabilities. The second theme involves the burden associated with the
survey and use of existing data where available. Each of these themes
will be addressed in turn.

*Theme 1: Purpose and Content of the National Assessment and the NAIS*

IDEA 2004 instructs ED to carryout a National Assessment of the law to
measure the (1) progress in the implementation of IDEA 2004; and (2) the
relative effectiveness of the law in achieving its purposes (as stated
in the NASDSE letter). The NAIS will inform the National Assessment.
However, the NAIS is only one of several studies being conducted that
will contribute to the National Assessment.

As part of the preparation for the National Assessment, the National
Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) at IES, initiated a design study,
conducted by a Westat/Abt Associates team and advised by a group of
practitioners, researchers, and evaluation experts, to develop key
research questions and approaches to address these questions. This
design work provided the framework for the NAIS and other studies to be
conducted that will contribute to the National Assessment. The NAIS
research questions were developed as part of this contract. The NAIS was
initiated to develop an understanding of state and local progress in
implementing IDEA 2004 focusing on the new provisions and to provide a
comprehensive, representative national picture of the implementation of
early intervention and special education policies and practices at the
state and district levels.

ED appreciates that the 2004 IDEA amendments (690; 614 (d)(5)) provide
an opportunity for states to identify ways to reduce paperwork burden
associated with IDEA and an opportunity for states to permit multi-year
IEPs. However, the assessment of paperwork burden on state and location
education agencies is not included in the NAIS research questions.
Therfore, this content is out of the scope of this particular study.

In addition to the NAIS, three other studies have been initiated by ED
as part of the National Assessment, (1) analyses of extant data on early
intervention and special education; (2) a study of the impact of school
improvement status on students with disabilities; and (3) an impact
evaluation of Response to Intervention strategies. The first study takes
advantage of available data and will answer the following questions:
What is the variation across states and over time in the proportion of
children that has been identified for early intervention or special
education under IDEA? and How do academic and developmental outcomes for
children with disabilities served under IDEA vary by disability
category, State, and over time, and how do these outcomes compare with
outcomes for children without disabilities, or who are no longer
eligible for special education? The latter two impact studies focus on
the effectiveness of strategies intended to improve student outcomes. In
all, there are multiple studies underway that will inform the National
Assessment that will focus on or include developmental and academic
outcomes of students served under IDEA.

*Theme 2: Burden and Duplicative Efforts*

As indicated above, the research questions for the NAIS were developed
as part of the design work. These research questions are available in
the Supporting Statement for the OMB submission. To answer each research
question, NAIS study areas were carefully prioritized by ED and Abt and
informed by a panel of experts including practitioners and researchers
and policy consultants with expertise in early intervention, early
childhood and special education for school-age children. Additionally, a
comprehensive review of data sources was completed to determine if
information was available on the topic areas and to eliminate any
duplicative efforts. Based on this review and expert feedback, ED
asserts that the information collected by the NAIS will not replicate
other ED data collection efforts. Initially, some areas were included in
the NAIS surveys that were also included in other data collections due
to the appeal of attaining data more recent than what was currently
available. However, due to burden concerns, these items were eliminated.
The following describes items eliminated due to burden and items
highlighted in the letter.

*Teacher Quality*: Several items included in the NAIS surveys focus on
teacher quality and seek to obtain information similar to information
this is collected through EDFacts. To avoid duplicative efforts and
reduce burden on respondents, the NAIS will rely on data collected
through EDFacts and eliminate these items from the NAIS Survey. The
following items have been removed from the surveys: Appendix C (State
619 Survey): Item 33; Appendix D (State Part B Administrator Survey):
Items 19; 20, 21, and 22; and Appendix E (District Part B Survey): Item
54, 55, 56, and 57.

*Assessment:* Item 36 from the State Part B Administrator Survey
(Appendix D) and item 45 on the District Part B Survey (Appendix E) were
removed.

*Dispute Resolution*: The NAIS surveys include dispute resolution items
that are more detailed and include more information than items in the
Section 618 table. The content and language in the NAIS items were
chosen (1) to collect detailed information on disputes, specifically
including issues that were the concern of the disputes and steps
agencies took to reduce the number of disputes, and (2) to collect
information that would permit a longitudinal analysis of dispute
resolution. As described in the supporting statement (Part A), a
previous investigation (Study of State and Local Implementation and
Impact of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; SLIIDEA)
collected information about dispute resolution as part of a prior
national assessment. By including the same items in the NAIS surveys,
the report will be able to provide the changes in disputes from the
2003-2004 and 2004-2005 collections to the planned NAIS 2008-2009
collection. To complete this longitudinal analysis, it is necessary to
keep the language of the NAIS items the same as it was in previous
administrations.

*Parent Involvement*: We appreciate that Indicator 8 in the APR includes
information on parent involvement, specifically parent report of school
facilitation of parent involvement (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). However, the questions on the Part B state
surveys cover very different content. The NAIS items serve to assess
state education agency support to school districts in promoting parent
involvement and state education agency collaboration with
federally-funded Parent Training and Information Centers (PTI).
Therefore, we plan to leave these questions unchanged.

*Standards-based IEPs:* IES has reviewed Project Forum work,
specifically *Standards-Based IEPs: Implementation in Selected States*
(as indicated in the above letter). While this work is relevant, there
are several limitations to the investigation that make its substitution
for NAIS data collection inappropriate. The 2006 Project Forum report on
standards-based IEPs includes a sample of 18 states that responded to an
invitation to participate in interviews. As described as part of Theme
1, the NAIS is to provide a comprehensive and representative picture of
implementation in all states. Therefore, it is necessary for the NAIS to
include standardized surveys of all state education agency
administrators.

Significant Disproportionality: We also appreciate that Indicators 9 and
10 in the APR gather information on disproportionality. However, the
indicators do not address the area of *significant* disproportionality
which is the focus of the items in the NAIS. States are not required
under IDEA to publicly report the data on the number or proportion of
districts who fall into the category of significant disproportionality.
Thus, there is no current source of data to address these issues.