Special Education: Improved Performance Measures Could Enhance Oversight of Dispute Resolution
Released: 2014-09-24T00:00:00

Letter

Background

A special education dispute may involve a variety of issues. According to an Education study published in 2011, the most common topics of disputes were (1) whether schools were providing an appropriate educational environment for certain students; (2) whether schools carried out the education programs as set forth in the IEP; (3) the types of special education and related services, if any, specific children needed; and (4) children’s eligibility for IDEA services and whether eligibility determinations were properly made.

A range of methods exists to resolve special education disputes, ranging from formal hearings and state complaint procedures to less formal, alternative methods.

Due Process Hearings and State Complaints

IDEA and its implementing regulations have long required states to provide two formal methods—due process hearings and state complaint resolutions—for resolving disputes between parents and school districts. Although both methods provide avenues for resolving such disputes, these processes differ with respect to who can file each type of complaint, subject matter, timing, procedures, and appeal processes.

Due Process Hearings

IDEA provides that parents and school districts have the right to file a due process complaint notice to request a due process hearing on any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to a child with a disability. For example, a parent might file a due process complaint over whether a school district is using the appropriate instructional methods for a child. After filing a complaint but prior to holding a hearing, IDEA requires parties to a dispute to attend a resolution meeting where parents discuss their complaint and the facts that form the basis of the complaint and the LEA is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint, unless the parent and the LEA agree in writing to waive the meeting or use IDEA’s mediation process. The purpose of the resolution meeting is to achieve a prompt and early resolution of a parent’s due process complaint to avoid a more costly and adversarial due process hearing and the potential for civil litigation. If the parties reach an agreement at the resolution meeting, then a due process hearing is not necessary. If the parties do not reach an agreement or choose to waive this meeting, a due process hearing is held. A due process hearing is an administrative proceeding in which an impartial hearing officer receives evidence, provides for the examination and cross-examination of witnesses by each party, and then issues a report of findings of fact and a decision. Either party can appeal a hearing officer’s decision in any state court of competent jurisdiction or in federal court without regard to the amount in controversy.

State Complaints

Education’s regulations pertaining to state complaint procedures permit parents and organizations and individuals, including those from another state, to file a complaint with the SEA alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of IDEA, Part B. This differs from a due process complaint in part because, while only parents and public agencies can file due process complaints, any organization or individual, including one from another state, may file a written state complaint. Once the complaint has been filed, the SEA must carry out an independent on-site investigation if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary.must then make a determination and issue a written decision that may include specific procedures for implementation of its decision. In contrast to due process procedures, parties cannot file an appeal in state or federal court.

See figure 1 for a comparison of the steps involved in due process and state complaint process under IDEA.

Education established specific timelines for issuing decisions resulting from due process hearings and state complaint resolutions and set terms by which these timelines can be extended (see table 1).

Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods

A variety of alternative dispute resolution methods exist that provide opportunities for parties to resolve disputes prior to due process hearings or state complaint resolutions. These include two methods states are required to provide under IDEA—mediation and resolution meetings—as well as others that states have voluntarily implemented.

Mediation and Resolution Meetings

Either a parent or a school district can initiate the mediation process, which must be voluntary for each party. Mediations are conducted by a qualified and impartial individual who is trained in effective mediation techniques and knowledgeable in laws and regulations about special education and related services. If the parties reach an agreement through the mediation process, they must execute a signed, written agreement. According to Education the agreement is enforceable in any state or federal district court or by the SEA if the state has other procedures that permit parties to seek enforcement of mediation or resolution agreements.

Resolution meetings allow parents and districts an opportunity to resolve a dispute without due process hearings by providing an opportunity for them to discuss the due process complaint and the facts that form the basis of that complaint without necessarily having attorneys present.Similar to mediation, if the parties reach agreement in a resolution meeting, they must execute a signed written agreement that is enforceable in state or federal court.

Other Alternative Methods

Alternative methods that states have voluntarily developed and implemented are generally meant to help to facilitate early resolution of disputes before they proceed to a due process hearing and to preserve relationships between families and educators. Examples of early resolution practices include educator training in conflict resolution, which is designed to equip individuals with skills to better communicate and negotiate their positions and interests, and facilitated IEP meetings in which a facilitator helps keep members of the IEP team focused on the development of the IEP while addressing conflicts and disagreements that may arise during the meeting.

Education’s Oversight and Technical Assistance

To ensure states comply with the requirements of their IDEA grants, Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) conducts a variety of activities to oversee and assist them, including monitoring states’ performance on a variety of indicators. We have previously reported that agencies need to have performance measures that demonstrate results, are limited to a vital few, cover multiple priorities, and provide useful information for decision making in order to track how their programs and activities can contribute to attaining the agency’s goals and mission. Further, past GAO work has shown that agencies successful in measuring performance had performance measures reflecting a range of attributes, such as clarity in how measures are stated and defined. Education uses four performance measures for dispute resolution as part of a system of performance measures to guide SEAs in their implementation of IDEA and in how they report their progress and performance to the department (see table 2).

Education established a new IDEA data center to help states, school districts, and other entities build capacity for collecting high quality IDEA performance data, including dispute resolution data, and makes these data available to the public on the center’s website. Education uses a variety of tools, including analyzing states’ performance data and conducting desk audits and on-site visits to monitor states’ compliance with IDEA’s dispute resolution requirements and target technical assistance.

Education has also recognized that involving parents in the education of their children with disabilities is important to preventing or mitigating disputes with school districts. In addition to data on dispute resolution, Education also requires states to provide data on the extent to which parents report that schools facilitated parent involvement to improve services and results for children with disabilities.

Education provides several forms of technical assistance to help states implement informal early resolution methods to facilitate the timely resolution of disputes. For example, Education funds the National Center on Dispute Resolution in Special Education to provide states with assistance in implementing a range of dispute resolution options, including those that provide opportunities for early, less costly, and less adversarial dispute resolution. Education also funds a national network of Parent Training and Information Centers that provide parents in each state with information about their rights under IDEA and the options available to them for resolving special education disputes. Lastly, Education provides written guidance on dispute resolution procedures under IDEA.

Due Process Hearings Have Substantially Decreased, and States and Territories Use a Range of Other Methods to Resolve Disputes

The National Decline in Rates and Numbers of Due Process Hearings Has Been Driven by Steep Rate Declines in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico

Since 2004, the nationwide rates of due process hearings—a key indicator of serious disputes between parents and school districts and a formal method for resolving disputes—have decreased substantially (see fig. 2). As shown in figure 2, this trend was largely driven by steep rate declines in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico—three locations that have relatively high rates of due process hearings. SEA representatives in these locations cited the use of mediation or resolution meetings as key among the reasons for the declines. Additionally, a New York official told us that the use of settlement agreements prior to due process hearing decisions may have also contributed to declines in hearings, while a District of Columbia official pointed to improvements in identifying students with special education needs earlier and delivering services more efficiently. Lastly, a representative for Puerto Rico told us that improvements in how the SEA handles due process complaints and the use of technology have resulted in a decline in hearings.

Despite such substantial declines, due process hearings in these locations still comprised over 80 percent of due process hearings nationally in 2011-2012. For trends in the numbers of due process hearings in these locations and all other states, see figure 3.

Outside of these three locations, the rate of due process hearings has remained consistently low, ranging from 1.5 hearings per 10,000 special education students in 2004-2005 to 0.7 hearings in 2011-2012. These overall low rates of due process hearings are slightly lower than observations we made over a decade ago, when we found that due process hearings occurred at a low rate of about 5 per 10,000 special Education officials told us that reducing the education students in 2000.occurrence of due process hearings was generally positive—considering that hearings can be protracted, adversarial and costly. However, they suggested that a low number of due process hearings may not necessarily indicate a lack of problems associated with delivering special education services. They suggested that dispute resolution trends should be understood in combination with other information on individual states, such as parents’ awareness of the procedural safeguards under IDEA.

According to state education officials, certain types of complaints have been associated with the substantially higher rates of due process hearings in New York, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. For example, state education officials in these locations told us that that many due process hearings were held because parents and officials from their children’s school districts disagreed on whether to place the students in private schools. In addition, a state education official in Puerto Rico told us many due process hearings were held because parents and officials disagreed about the need to provide services related to special education, such as physical therapy or special classroom accommodation. Further, Education officials told us that higher rates of due process hearings in District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have been driven, in part, by consent decrees, which are agreements entered into by parties to a lawsuit under the supervision of a court. For example, lawsuits were initiated against District of Columbia public schools in 1997, alleging that District of Columbia failed to provide timely due process hearings and implementation of hearing officer determinations and settlement agreements. The latest consent decree was approved under this litigation in 2006 by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, with one of its goals being for District of Columbia to achieve and maintain timely due process hearings.

States and Territories Use a Range of Alternative Methods for Early Dispute Resolution

Regarding the two alternative methods states are required by IDEA to make available, the rate of mediations held decreased slightly from 2004 to 2012, and the rate of resolution meetings held more than doubled from 2005-06—when states were first required to implement them—to 2006-07 and declined slightly from 2006-07 to 2011-12 (see fig. 4). The slight overall decline in mediations may have resulted, in part, from the decrease in due process complaints filed. According to Education officials, the low rate of resolution meetings in 2005-2006 (6.9 per 10,000 students) can be explained primarily by the lack of awareness about this new requirement among school districts at that time.

We found that while mediations occurred less frequently than resolution meetings in 2011-2012, mediations were more likely than resolution meetings to result in agreements. That is, over two-thirds (69 percent) of mediations resulted in agreements while less than a quarter (22 percent) of all resolution meetings resulted in agreements. These differences may be due to the fact that resolution meetings are required prior to a due process hearing, unless waived by both parties, while mediations are voluntary for the parties, and the parties may therefore be more open to agreement.

In addition to mediation and resolution meetings, states and territories we surveyed reported voluntarily offering a variety of other alternative dispute resolution methods, with two-thirds (33 out of 51) of them reporting offering three or more such methods. Among the most common of these were (1) dispute resolution helplines, (2) facilitated IEP meetings, (3) facilitated resolution meetings, (4) parent-to-parent assistance, and (5) conflict resolution skills training (see fig. 5). These methods are briefly described as follows: We surveyed a total of 60 states and territories and received a 100 percent overall response rate. However, not all 60 states and territories answered every question. The total number of responses to questions related to the individual dispute resolution methods above was 59 of 60 states/territories completing the survey.

Dispute resolution helplines. Dedicated staff in the SEA or through an SEA-contracted service provider available to respond to calls or e- mails from the public about dispute resolution options and procedures. For example, California reported maintaining a toll free number to allow both parents and school staff to contact them for advice. The service is provided in English and Spanish and helpline personnel may refer parents to support services such as parent centers, family empowerment centers, or technical assistance units. New York reported operating six regional offices staffed by state education personnel who provide parents and other parties with information regarding dispute resolution options and technical assistance.

Facilitated IEP meetings. Facilitators who are not part of the IEP team are used when an adversarial climate exists or when an IEP meeting is expected to be particularly complex or controversial. Texas reported it promotes facilitated IEP team meetings by developing a statewide facilitated IEP meetings project to be implemented in the 2014-15 school year.

Facilitated resolution meetings. Facilitators are used to help parties resolve a dispute during a resolution meeting. Michigan reported that resolution meetings are facilitated by special education attorneys and help encourage parties to resolve a dispute before it goes to a due process hearing.

Parent-to-parent assistance. An SEA-supported service in which parents assist other parents and school district personnel, especially in addressing emerging or active complaints. Maryland reported it maintains family support specialists who work informally with families and school systems to resolve special education disputes.

Conflict Resolution Skills Training. Training to enhance the capacity of parents and school, district, and state personnel to communicate, negotiate, and prevent conflict from evolving and becoming problematic. For example, in Iowa, the SEA conflict resolution skills training for state administrators, LEA representatives, and parents.

States, Territories, and Other Stakeholders Reported Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods Helped Resolve Disputes without Resorting to Due Process Hearings

States, Territories, and Other Stakeholders Considered Alternative Methods Important for Resolving Disputes without Resorting to Due Process Hearings

On our survey, a large majority of state officials reported mediation and resolution meetings—methods that IDEA requires states make available—as extremely, very or moderately important to resolving disputes early. Many states also reported methods they have voluntarily implemented as extremely, very or moderately important. Some stakeholders cited the potential of these methods to improve communication and trust between parents and schools.

Mediation

55 states and territories reported that mediation was extremely, very or moderately important to resolving disputes,commented on our survey or in follow up discussions that it provides parties with an opportunity to reduce tension, preserve or enhance relationships, and having a third party facilitate the discussion is beneficial. For example, an Iowa official explained that mediation can allow for more expedient dispute resolution and help to preserve or enhance relationships between parents and schools. Several officials and some officials expressed positive views about mediation and noted that there was a high likelihood that mediation resulted in agreements between parents and schools in their states. For example, officials from Rhode Island and Connecticut commented that a majority of mediations resulted in agreements in 2012-13 in their states, and one noted that most of them were reached on the day of the mediation between parents and school districts. Some state officials described on our survey and in follow up discussions difficulties they encountered in expanding the use of mediation in their state. An Oklahoma official commented that many schools are resistant to the idea of mediation before the filing of a due process complaint because of legal concerns about mediation agreements. New York and D.C. officials told us in follow up discussions that mediation is underutilized despite its availability, in part because not all parents know that mediation is available for dispute resolution but also because parents may question the independence of mediators in their state. Some parents in one state told us they were not satisfied with the competency or independence of mediators. A national advocacy organization for people with disabilities, told us its organization recommends families to pursue mediation rather than filing a due process complaint because a trained mediator can have a positive impact of bringing parents and schools together. Education’s guidance on dispute resolution similarly recognizes that the success of mediation is closely related to the mediator’s ability to obtain the trust of both parties and commitment to the process.

Resolution Meetings

Forty-five states and territories reported that resolution meetings are an extremely, very, or moderately important method to resolve disputes. Some officials also commented that meetings such as these give parents and the school district a chance to discuss the basis of the dispute and work together to avoid a potentially adversarial due process hearing, which can also lead to improved relationships between parents and their school districts. A few state officials cited a high number of agreements as the result of resolution meetings. For example, a West Virginia official noted that during 2012, all of their requests for due process hearings were resolved at resolution meetings, and a Rhode Island official wrote that over half of its resolution meetings resulted in written agreements in the same year. However, several state officials commented on our survey or in follow up discussions that some parties prefer to waive the resolution meeting or that by the time the resolution meeting occurs parties are already entrenched which limits the ability of parties to reach an agreement before a due process hearing. For example, a Pennsylvania official told us that often parents who file due process complaints have legal representation and generally attorneys in her state have little incentive to resolve a dispute prior to a due process hearing. Similarly, attorney members of a national organization representing school boards told us in an interview that, when parents are not represented by an attorney, most disputes are resolved before they proceed to due process; however if parents are represented by attorneys, disputes are rarely are disputes resolved before a due process hearing.

Officials from an organization representing children with disabilities commented that resolution meetings are not as effective as facilitated methods where an independent third party assists parents and schools in finding a solution. IDEA does not require that resolution meetings be facilitated; however, several state officials commented on our survey and in follow up discussions that third party facilitation for resolution meetings is helpful in bringing about a resolution without resorting to a hearing. For example, an Oklahoma official commented that state officials had found facilitated resolution meetings useful to resolve disputes earlier and noted that without facilitation, parties often found it difficult to reach an agreement.

Other Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods

When we asked survey respondents to comment on the alternative dispute resolutions they voluntarily implemented—that is, those not required by IDEA—more than half of state officials reported that their states offer dispute resolution helplines while about half offer Facilitated IEP meetings, Conflict resolution skills training, and parent-to-parent assistance (see table 3).

A majority of states and territories reported that the guidance and assistance provided by CADRE—which serves as Education’s technical advisor and resource on special education dispute resolution—was extremely, very or moderately useful to their efforts to successfully implement and expand their early dispute resolution methods. For example, a Pennsylvania official told us in a follow up discussion that CADRE is the first resource they turn to for information and to obtain a national perspective on alternative dispute resolution issues, and an official from Florida commented that the technical assistance they received from CADRE was excellent. An Illinois official also reported their state frequently uses CADRE’s services, which were instrumental to the development and implementation of facilitated IEP meetings in their state.

Over half of the states surveyed reported no challenge or only a slight challenge in implementing or expanding dispute resolution methods due to, for example, lack of expertise or parent or school district resistance to using such methods. In follow up discussions, some state officials said the lack of public awareness as a challenge to implementing or expanding the use of alternative dispute resolution methods they have voluntarily implemented, and that they are addressing this challenge with various strategies. For example, a Pennsylvania state official told us about the difficulty of reaching out to and educating parents in rural and highly urban areas about alternative dispute resolution methods they have voluntarily implemented because they have less access to online information, and said the state partners with parent education networks and a statewide stakeholder council of parent advocates to raise awareness. Connecticut officials added that the state communicates with various parent groups throughout the year, publicizes alternate dispute resolution methods in its special education bulletins, and disseminates informational materials among parent groups and other state agencies. A Texas official said the state offers workshops at conferences and parent meetings to raise awareness of the states’ methods for resolving disputes.

Education Lacks Key Information on the Timeliness of Due Process Hearing Decisions, and the Parental Involvement Data It Collects Are Not Used for Oversight

Education’s Method for Measuring the Timeliness of Due Process Hearing Decisions Does Not Reflect Time Added by Extensions

Education assesses states’ performance on dispute resolution using several different measures (see table 2) but lacks key information about the timeliness of due process hearing decisions, which reduces its ability to monitor dispute resolution effectively. Under its regulations, Education requires states and school districts, where applicable, to ensure that decisions are reached in due process hearings within 45 days after the expiration of the 30-day resolution period or adjusted resolution periods.These regulations also permit a hearing officer to grant specific extensions of this 45-day timeline, at the request of either party to the hearing. According to Education’s guidance on performance measures, all states are required to report the number of due process hearing requests that were adjudicated within 45 days, or a timeline that includes any approved extensions. However, this guidance does not direct states to report the amount of time that extensions add to due process hearing decisions. Leading performance measurement practices identified in our past work state that successful performance measures should, among other things, be clearly stated and provide unambiguous information.

As shown in figure 6, nearly half of all due process hearing decision timelines were extended in school year 2011-12; in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, the large majority of hearing decisions were made under extended timelines. The decisions in these three states accounted for more than 65 percent of all hearing decisions nationally. Despite the more frequent use of extensions in California and New York, in 2011 they achieved about 99 percent and 86 percent, respectively, of the 100 percent performance target that Education established for hearing decision timeliness. Education’s current performance measure creates the appearance that most hearing decisions in California and New York were timely even though extended hearings took an unknown amount of time, and no information is available about whether these extended timeframes affected the provision of services to children with disabilities.

Education officials told us that, while they were aware of the use of extensions in states, they did not know how much time extensions add to hearing decisions because they do not collect this information. They stated they were not concerned specifically about the effect of extensions on the timeliness of dispute resolution because they believe extensions are generally used for appropriate reasons, such as providing additional opportunities for resolving disputes prior to a hearing, accommodating parties’ schedules, and affording parents sufficient time to resolve disputes.

A range of special education stakeholders, including state education officials and officials from national organizations that represent parents, students, and school systems, agreed that extensions to hearing decisions are requested by parties for a variety of reasons, including when (1) weather and school vacations result in school closures; (2) some or all parties (parents, district personnel, attorneys, and expert witnesses) are not available; (3) attorneys or parents require additional time to prepare cases; and (4) the parties involved want to allow additional time to schedule a mediation.

Though Education does not gather data on how much time extensions add on average to the dispute resolution process, some stakeholders we spoke with provided examples of extensions that typically ranged from a few weeks to several months. Several, including disability advocates and a state education official, stated that some decisions are extended by up to a year or more. Another noted that timelines for hearing decisions in one state typically get extended four or five times.

Stakeholders differed in their views on the extent to which the time added to due process decision timelines by extensions affected the education of children with disabilities. Some stakeholders stated there is likely to be little or no negative effect on children’s education because of IDEA’s “stay put” provision, which generally ensures that children will stay in their current educational placement until a dispute resolution proceeding is completed. However, other stakeholders pointed out that extensions could cause some children not to receive appropriate educational services in a timely manner. For example, one stakeholder commented that for children currently placed in a program under the “stay put” provision, an extended hearing decision could mean the child would continue to receive educational services that may be inappropriate. Another stakeholder commented that extended decisions could also adversely affect children for whom “stay put” does not apply, such as those waiting to be identified for educational services.

Because Education’s current measures do not provide clear and complete information on the total amount of time that due process hearing decisions take or the reasons for any time extensions, Education and other stakeholders, such as Congress, lack information about when and whether extended decisions could adversely affect the education of children with disabilities. Further, Education lacks information that could be used to identify trends and patterns within a state or across states that could help Education better target its oversight or monitoring. Lastly, as currently reported, states’ results on this measure may provide Congress with a misleading picture of the amount of time that hearing decisions take, particularly in states with high rates of extensions.

Parental Involvement Performance Data Do Not Support Dispute Resolution Oversight

Education collects data from states on parental involvement in the education of children with disabilities, but these data are not comparable across states, and as a result Education cannot use these data to target its oversight of states’ dispute resolution activities. One of Congress’ findings in passing IDEA was that decades of research had demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by strengthening the role and responsibility of parents, and Education has recognized the importance of parental involvement in fostering relationships between parents and educators and preventing special education disputes. Accordingly, Education developed a performance measure for parental involvement and requires states to collect and report the results of this measure annually. Its measure is defined as the percentage of parents with a child receiving special education services who report that schools facilitated parental involvement as a means of improving services and results for children with disabilities, but states collect and analyze this information in different ways. According to Education officials, although IDEA does not specifically require Education to collect parental involvement data, parental involvement is such a critical factor in ensuring children needing special education services are provided such services that they believe it is important for states to collect and report such data. In 2002, the National Center for Special Education Accountability Monitoring (NCSEAM)—a national technical assistance center funded by Education—developed and validated a scale for states to use to measure parental involvement because of the lack of survey instruments designed to obtain parents’ perceptions of schools’ facilitation of their involvement. To date, over half of states and territories use the NCSEAM scale to collect and report data for this measure. Education officials told us they believed states gather data that is meaningful and useful for their own efforts. However, these officials said that Education cannot determine which states provide high quality parental involvement data, nor does Education use these data to monitor and oversee states’ performance in this area and is unable to compare state performance because states have considerable latitude to determine the methodologies they use to collect the data and these methodologies consequently vary across states. As a result, Education is unable to assess the performance of individual states or compare states’ performance on this measure.

The lack of comparable parental involvement data from states can be attributed to a variety of factors, according to PACER Center (Parent Advocacy Coalition for Educational Rights), which recently operated the National Parent Technical Assistance Center and conducted annual analyses of states’ parent involvement data for Education. PACER officials stated they found significant variability among states in their survey instruments, sampling and analysis methods, and the performance targets states set for parental involvement. In previous analysis, PACER reported that in 2011, 34 states used a version of the parental involvement surveys developed by NCSEAM, 10 states used their own state-developed instrument, 10 states adapted questions from the NCSEAM or other parent surveys to develop their own surveys, and 3 According to PACER officials, states used a combination of surveys.states’ use of different survey instruments results in parents responding to questions that may represent varying types of parental involvement. They also noted that states varied in how they analyze survey results for the purposes of reporting on Education’s measure. For example, in some states only half of the questions require positive responses for the survey to be scored positive overall for parental involvement on Education’s measure; in others, a much higher percentage of questions require positive responses to be scored positive overall for parental involvement. Ultimately, PACER officials suggested that the meaningfulness of parent involvement data depends on the ability to use it to make valid comparisons across states and this requires that Education establish and require states to adopt consistent data collection and analysis methods. Others have also noted that the lack of consistency in data collection compromises the meaningfulness of the data. For example, a subject matter specialist noted that recent parental involvement data show a wide range of state performance on this measure—from below 20 percent to above 90 percent—raising important questions about validity that may undermine the public’s confidence in the data. The specialist noted the lack of comparability in state data and the recognition among states that Education does not use the data for oversight may discourage states from improving their parental involvement measures and practices.

Education officials said they explored the option of revising its parental involvement measure when some states raised issues about the burden of collecting the data but ultimately decided not to change it after encountering significant resistance from parent and advocate groups. Specifically, officials said they informally proposed that states report information about how they address and measure parental involvement in their state without requiring states to use a quantitative measure or targets. Education presented this proposal to a range of stakeholder groups, including state officials, Parent Training and Information Centers, advocates, and parents, among others. Education officials said parents and advocates were strongly opposed to the proposal to eliminate the current measure, suggesting instead that the department require that all states take a standard approach to collecting parent involvement data. For example, one parent advocacy organization stated that comparability of parental involvement data across states is critical and that Education should require a consistent approach to data collection for all states to ensure that the status of parental involvement for all families of children receiving special education services is reflected in their results. However, one organization representing states commented on the burdens of collecting data for the measure, pointing to the costs to states of mailing out parent surveys and noting that most surveys are not returned. On the other hand, conducting parent surveys does not necessarily entail high costs, according to one subject matter specialist who provided comments to Education. She noted that Florida took a number of steps to lower survey costs without compromising data quality, including moving to a web-based survey, with printed survey forms available to parents on request, and suggested that alternatives to costly survey mailings exist and should be considered. Also, PACER officials have stated that requiring a consistent approach to collecting parental involvement data may decrease some of the data collection burden associated with Education’s measure because states would not need to develop their own approaches.

Education officials told us they question the usefulness of comparable parental involvement data across states for oversight and pointed to data on the overrepresentation of racial and ethnic groups in special education, among other IDEA measures, that are also not comparable across states. However, in 2013 GAO found these data do not provide a consistent picture on overrepresentation. Specifically, we found that the flexibility to define how states measure overrepresentation resulted in inconsistent definitions and data collection methods across states and recommended that Education adopt a standard approach to measurement for all states. In responding to this recommendation, Education said that it did not have all the information necessary to determine whether it is appropriate to develop a single standard for overrepresentation. Education began soliciting public comments from stakeholders beginning in June 2014 to assist the department in considering the development of such a standard.

Leading performance measurement practices state that organizations that have progressed toward results-oriented management use performance information as a basis for decision making and that full benefit of collecting such information is realized only when managers actually use it Uses of performance information to improve results include to manage. monitoring, resource allocation, and identifying and sharing effective practices, among others. The usefulness of performance information also depends, in part, on the extent to which the data are collected using consistent procedures and definitions.

Without comparable parental involvement data across states, Education lacks important performance information which limits its ability to oversee states’ dispute resolution activities, including monitoring and identifying problems with parental involvement in states and recommending improvement activities for states to take; recognizing and incentivizing high performance; assessing states’ needs for technical assistance on parental involvement and making appropriate resource decisions; and identifying and helping to share promising parental involvement practices among states.

Conclusions

Both IDEA and Education recognize the importance of parental involvement in the education of children with disabilities. Having parents who are appropriately informed and involved in decision-making regarding the education of students with disabilities can lead to the resolution of disputes in a more collaborative manner without the use of formal dispute resolution methods and may result in greater trust between parents and school districts, and earlier, less adversarial dispute resolution. In addition, resolving disagreements before they escalate and become adversarial is in the collective best interest of parents, students, and districts.

It is also important for Education to hold states accountable for timely dispute resolution to protect the educational interests of children with disabilities. In particular, it is important that Education have an effective measure of hearing decision timeliness for monitoring states’ dispute resolution performance. However, Education’s measure does not provide clear, complete information about the duration of this process, information which is useful for ensuring effective program monitoring and targeted technical assistance. While Education tracks the number of hearing decisions made within 45 days, without information on the amount of time added to decisions timelines by extensions, Education is limited in its ability to monitor in this area, which could negatively affect children and their families by, for example, delaying the provision of appropriate special education services.

Additionally, Education views parental involvement as a critical factor in ensuring children needing special education services are provided such services and for this reason collects parental involvement data from states. However, without making the data more comparable across states, Education may be prevented from rigorously evaluating states’ performance in this area and may be limited in its ability to identify promising practices and effectively target assistance to states in their efforts to resolve disputes at an early state. Additionally, unless Education uses the data it collects, it will not reap their potential benefits in improving performance for the benefit of students and parents.

Recommendations for Executive Action

Based on our review, we recommend the Secretary of Education direct the Office of Special Education Programs take the following two actions: 1. To increase transparency regarding the timeliness of due process hearing decisions for Congress and better target its monitoring and technical assistance to states, revise its performance measure to collect information from states on the amount of time that extensions add to due process hearing decisions. 2. To assist its oversight of dispute resolution, take steps to improve the comparability of parental involvement data while minimizing the burden to states, and use the data for better management decision making. Steps to consider could include establishing and requiring that states follow standard data collection and analysis procedures.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment. Education’s comments are produced in appendix I. Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into our report where appropriate. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendations but proposed alternative actions. However, Education’s proposed actions will not effectively address the weaknesses we identified in Education’s performance measures and we continue to believe our recommendations are valid.

In its comments, Education recognized the importance of promptly and fairly resolving special education disputes between parents and school districts and agreed that additional information on extensions could be useful in targeting its monitoring and technical assistance activities in states with large numbers of hearings issued within extended timelines. However, Education stated that collecting data from all states and territories on the amount of time that extensions add to hearing timelines would not necessarily improve its capacity to ensure that states and territories are properly implementing IDEA’s dispute resolution procedures. Instead, Education proposed that it conduct follow up monitoring with any state that reports 10 or more fully adjudicated hearings in a given year where at least 75 percent of the decisions are issued with extended timelines. While this approach might be useful for Education’s targeting of monitoring and assistance to states—particularly if monitoring includes collecting information about the duration of extensions, why parties request extensions and the effects of extended timelines on children’s education—we believe Education’s proposal alone will not correct the potentially misleading picture its timeliness measure creates regarding of the amount of time that hearing decisions actually take. As noted in the report, some stakeholders pointed out that extensions could cause some children not to receive appropriate educational services in a timely manner. Thus, we continue to see advantages in addressing the core weakness of its measure by collecting information from all states on the amount of time that extensions add to hearing decision timelines. Further, Education noted that only 12 states and territories had 10 or more fully adjudicated hearings in 2011-12 and stated that it is not appropriate or efficient to burden all states in collecting these data. However, requiring states with fewer hearings to report this information is unlikely to create significant administrative burden for them, as they would be providing information on a small number of decisions. Without reliable performance information, the public lacks a clear picture of the time required to reach due process hearing decisions and the potential impact on affected children.

Regarding our recommendation that it improve the comparability of parental involvement data it collects and use the data for better management decision making, Education stated it does not believe there is a need to improve the comparability of states’ parental involvement data. More specifically, Education said that these data are designed to measure state performance against targets that each state sets, based on state-specific needs and circumstances. To improve the quality of parental involvement data, Education said it will work with states through its technical assistance centers to help build their capacity to collect high quality data. We commend Education’s proposal to assist states in this way; however, its approach will continue to require states to report parental involvement data that Education cannot use to assist with oversight and manage for results related to dispute resolution. For example, absent comparable performance information across states, Education could not monitor states with weak performance on parental involvement or identify and assist states in sharing promising parental involvement practices that may help prevent disputes from developing. One approach Education could consider to improve the comparability of parental involvement data would be to establish and require that states follow standard data collection and analysis procedures in reporting the existing measure. Education stated that standardizing the collection of parental involvement data among states would result in increased administrative burden on some states. However, in our report we note that Education’s former national technical assistance center on parental involvement suggested that consistent data collection may, in fact, decrease administrative burden because states would not need to develop their own approaches. Until Education collects data that it can use to effectively manage this effort, it will likely be limited in its ability to enhance collaboration between parents and educators, which facilitates resolving disputes earlier through less formal and costly means.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Comments from the U.S. Department of Education

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Jacqueline M. Nowicki, (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Betty Ward-Zukerman, Assistant Director; Edward F. Bodine, Analyst-in-Charge; Grace E. Cho, and John S. Townes made significant contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were James E. Bennett, Deborah K. Bland, David M. Chrisinger, Lara L. Laufer, Benjamin T. Licht, Ying Long, Cady S. Panetta, James M. Rebbe, Carl M. Ramirez and Walter K. Vance.