OSEP Plans for Results Driven Accountability System

As OSEP staff begins to identify ways to move the accountability system from compliance to results, OSEP has used the ED.gov blog to post question about different aspects of the accountability system.  The third question, posted by OSEP on September 4, 2012 to the ed.gov blog is below:

RDA Question #3:
 
“The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires the U.S. Department of Education and states to focus on improving educational results and functional outcomes for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities, as well as to ensure that programs meet IDEA requirements. As the department refocuses its accountability efforts, which IDEA requirements do you see as being most closely related to improved educational results and functional outcomes for infants, toddlers, children and youth with disabilities?” (emphasis added)

The EIFA board wants to insure that families are engaged and involved in the process.   It is important that we know which of the current Annual Performance Report (APR) indicators are compliance indicators and which are what are known as Results indicators.  You can visit the NECTAC.org website for an analysis of the 2012 APR indicators.  The opportunity to comment ends on September 14, 2012.

Compliance vs. Results

Briefly, the compliance indicators look at whether or not children were evaluated within 45 days of referral, received services in a timely manner and whether or not the state collected relevant data on those timelines and monitored the activities and data collection methods of those they contract with to provide early intervention services.  On the other hand, the results indicators are designed to generate and collect data that look at the outcomes of children and their families.   Indicator 3 looks at child outcomes or the percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate improved:

(a) Positive social-emotional skills (including social relationships);

(b) Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early language/communication); 

and

(c) Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.

Indicator 4 measures the percent of families participating in Part C who report that early intervention services have helped the family:

(a) Know their rights;

(b) Effectively communicate their children's needs, and

(c) Help their children develop and learn.

As involved family leaders, EIFA members know that the ECO Center, in coordination with NECTAC and OSEP developed methods to measure, collect and analyze valid and reliable data that can demonstrate both the efficacy of early intervention and the impact it has on the lives of young children with disabilities and their families.  How do you think this data can be better used to improve outcomes?  Are there ways in which states and OSEP could better