Activities Related to IDEA 2004 Monitoring Requirements

In 2004-05, on what compliance/performance areas did states focus their monitoring efforts? Did these focus areas include the priority areas identified by IDEA 2004?

• According to data from the mail surveys, in 2004-05 most states reported focusing their monitoring and improvement efforts on a select set of areas or priorities (44 states or 86 percent for Part B and 38 states or 75 percent for Part C). See tables D-1 and E-7.
• For Part B, the most commonly reported focus area or priority for monitoring was FAPE in the least restrictive environment (35 states or 80 percent of the 44 states that reported focus areas). See table D-3.
• Other Part B focus areas frequently identified by states related to child outcomes: access to the general curriculum (30 states), graduation rates (29 states), performance on assessments (28 states), and dropout rates (27 states). See table D-3.
• Some of the priority areas mandated by IDEA 2004 were identified by fewer than 27 states. Twenty six states indicated that they focused on the disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups in special education. Child find was identified as a focus area by 16 states; dispute resolution (e.g., resolution sessions, mediation, voluntary binding arbitration) was identified as a focus area by 11 states, and postsecondary transition was identified as a focus area by 23 states. See table D-3.
• For Part C, the most commonly reported focus area for monitoring was the individualized family service plan requirements and procedures (35 states or 92 percent of the 38 states that reported having focus areas). See table E-9.
• Other Part C focus areas frequently identified by states included transition to preschool (33 states), natural environments (32 states), child find (29 states), and transition to other settings (27 states). Twelve states reported focusing on dispute resolution, and 9 states reported focusing on disproportionate representation of racial/ethnic groups. See table E-9.

According to IDEA 2004, states should monitor using quantifiable indicators and establish measurable and rigorous targets for those indicators to measure performance in each of the priority areas. Prior to the implementation of this requirement, did states define indicators for their focus areas and targets for each of their indicators?

• For Part B, in 2004-05, 37 states reported that they had specific indicators for each of their focus areas (84 percent of the 44 states that reported having focus areas). Of these states, 29 reported targets for each indicator. See tables D-5 and D-6.
• For Part C, 32 states reported that they had specific indicators for each of their focus areas (84 percent of the 38 states that reported having focus areas). Of these states, 29 reported targets for each indicator. See tables E-11 and E-12.

IDEA 2004 calls for states to publicly report the performance of each LEA on the targets for the indicators used to measure performance in the priority areas. Prior to reauthorization, how many states reported the results of their monitoring and improvement planning to the public?⁵

• For Part B, 24 states reported that they had publicly released⁶ either individual or aggregated LEA scores on compliance indicators; 10 states reported that they had publicly released LEA ranks on either individual or aggregated compliance indicators; and 18 states reported that they had publicly released individual or aggregated LEA corrective actions. See table D-69.⁷
• For Part C, 22 states reported that they had publicly released either individual or aggregated monitoring unit scores on compliance indicators; 9 states reported that they had publicly released monitoring unit ranks on either individual or aggregated compliance indicators; and 11 states reported that they had publicly released individual or aggregated monitoring unit corrective actions. See table E-72.⁸

Top