Accountability in Special Education: A Walking Tour

Federal law requiring states to implement special education programs for students with disabilities have been in effect for twenty-five years.  However, until recently, little attention has been paid to efforts to monitor the effectiveness of implementing the law by the federal government, states, and local schools.  This web site provides information and links regarding accountability for the implementation of special education law.  Commonly referred to as monitoring, the federal government (Office of Special Education Programs – OSEP), states, and often local school systems implement “an administrative system of measures and procedures that supports the assurance that services to students with disabilities and their families comply with federal law and regulations. When noncompliance is detected, corrective actions are implemented to ensure compliance.”  Monitoring by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has resulted in reports on each state’s implementation of federal law (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/monrepts/index.html) although most reports are issued more than eighteen months after on-site visits.  This long time-lag in issuing reports has hindered the impact of federal oversight of special education.

Traditional special education monitoring, as practiced by OSEP and many states has been seriously criticized.  The National Council on Disability released a report, Back to School on Civil Rights, http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/reports/IDEA_Compliance_Index.htm that called into question the ability of OSEP to monitor implementation of federal law.  A recent congressional hearing on the implementation of federal special education law by representative Dan Burton highlighted OSEP’s problems in monitoring states (http://www.wrightslaw.com/news/2001/diaz_hearing.htm).

OSEP’s attempted to improve its monitoring procedures with a refinement of the traditional system of monitoring called Continuous Improvement Monitoring (http://www.dssc.org/frc/monitor.htm ).  Contact personnel are currently assigned to states (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/state_contact_list.html) to provide information on the status of monitoring efforts.

Advocacy groups have taken action against states to ensure that monitoring is improved.  Advocacy, Inc. of Texas is currently litigating Angel G. v TEA  http://www.advocacyinc.org/recent.htm against the Texas Education Agency.  The law suit led plaintiffs to court because Dr. Jim Tucker deemed Texas’ model “fundamentally flawed.”  Experts for the plaintiffs developed an alternative monitoring model designed to correct the flaws found in the Texas model.  This model has been refined in recent years as “Focused monitoring.”  A national advocacy effort to reform federal and state monitoring is hosted by the Monitoring and Enforcement Workgroup of the National Protection and Advocacy Systems (NAPAS).  Their work papers (naproposal.doc) have influenced thinking on how monitoring should be reformed.

Focused Monitoring has several key principles. 

â   Addresses all legal requirements, Including. procedural compliance and educational results for students

â   Includes public involvement in special education compliance issues

â   Builds upon existing student data to increase the efficiency of the system

â   Directs resources to areas of greatest need

â   Results in timely verification or enforcement  of compliance.

Considerable data are available to suggest areas of improvement in special education programs.  The recent federal Department of Education report, 22^nd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals With Disabilities Act http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/OSEP/OSEP2000AnlRpt/ provides extensive data but in difficult to interpret formats.  A closer examination of data from the 22^nd Annual Report provides some intriguing comparisons (presentation: 22nd Annual Report).  States have also used data to characterize the performance of special education programs and describe areas for improvement.  For example, Louisiana’s Steering Committee on Special Education compiled data (presentation: Louisiana presents to OSEP) as part of preparation for federal monitoring by OSEP.

New York was the first state to use data as part of improving the implementation of special education programs (http://web.nysed.gov/vesid/sped/quality/qamain.htm).  Referred to as “quality assurance” or “performance-based monitoring” the New York Department of Education routinely disseminates data on the performance of all school systems implementing special education (http://web.nysed.gov/vesid/pubpage.html#A62).  

Several states have begun to pilot or experiment with alternative monitoring models that focus on priorities or selected issues of implementation.  Commonly referred to as ‘Focused Monitoring” or “Performance-Based Monitoring” these new models have been developed using the principles of Focused Monitoring noted above.

Louisiana was the first state to consider transforming traditional monitoring into a more viable process (http://www.doe.state.la.us/DOE/asps/home.asp?I=DSP).  Louisiana developed a Focused Monitoring model (Louisiana Monitoring) that uses many of the principles discussed above and uses parents as part of the monitoring teams.

California has developed an ambitious version of focused monitoring (http://www.cde.ca.gov/spbranch/sed/qap.htm).  Numerous descriptions of California’s model are available (California Monitoring).

Florida began planning to implement Focused Monitoring in May, 2000.  Meetings with administrators and stakeholders produced an initial model (Florida Monitoring) that led to training of pilot monitoring teams in early March, 2001 (Overview Presentation).

New Mexico began developing Focused Monitoring in September, 2000.  Initial meetings with administrators (New Mexico Monitoring) led to subsequent presentations to the state Special Advisory Commission.  A Stakeholders Meeting to develop priorities is scheduled for April, 2001. 

Page last updated: 03/09/01 03:31 PM

Maintained by: mmiller@hdc.lsumc.edu
The statements found on this page are for informational purposes only. While every effort is made to ensure that this information is up-to-date and accurate, for official information please consult a printed University publication.