Shift to monitoring outcomes and essential inputs
Compliance monitoring is a major component of IDEA: the federal government monitors states, and states monitor districts. While compliance is essential, it has prioritized a procedural mindset over an outcome orientation. Even under current monitoring, many districts and states fail to comply with the law. But compliance monitoring, particularly state monitoring of districts, could be leveraged better to improve special education for students.
Delivering effective special education involves collecting data, monitoring progress, and making instructional changes when progress stalls or falters. If applied to schools and districts, this approach could help states focus more on outcomes and essential inputs and less on procedures and paperwork. The resulting data, if presented legibly to families, schools, and districts, could show states what type of support is needed and where it should be directed. Better yet, schools and districts don’t need to wait on the state to intervene. They can leverage the data to identify where their current special education system needs improvement. States could consider loosening oversight for districts with better outcomes for students with disabilities, while maintaining compliance with federal law.
Districts are required under IDEA and other federal laws to report the numbers of students with disabilities, the settings in which these students are educated, the numbers of certified special education teachers and staff, incidents of exclusionary discipline, student test participation, and test outcomes. However, it’s unclear these data get much use—particularly the student outcome data. But many states and districts collect their own data on such factors as educator turnover and student progress that can be used to improve the effectiveness of special education at the local level. These data could be made public to demonstrate how a district is performing relative to others in the state. Data could be further disaggregated by student and setting characteristics to uncover differences in access and outcomes. States could use this information to identify struggling districts and learn from those where students with disabilities perform well.
Take staffing shortages as an example. School personnel challenges for students with disabilities vary by district but are often addressed with broad rather than targeted solutions. A state monitoring system might flag a district for having particularly low outcomes for students with disabilities. Digging into the data might reveal high percentages of special education positions filled by uncertified teachers, which contributes to high turnover rates. A targeted response could involve the district, the state, or federally funded technical assistance provider brokering connections with institutions of higher education to host student teachers, investigating the feasibility of financial incentives for special educators, or promoting the development of new pathways to certification, responsive to local context.
