On October 21, 2009 US Education Secretary Arne Duncan released a Letter to Chief State School Officers and State Directors of Special Education urging states to maintain high standards and not compromise the section 616 determination process under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in view of the large increase in IDEA Part B federal funds that LEAs are receiving as a result of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).
The letter is below and available online at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/091021.html www.IDEAmoneywatch.com http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/guidance/idea-b-reform.pdf <
Under section 616 of the IDEA, States are required to make annual determinations about the performance of the LEAs using the categories of “meets requirements,” “needs assistance,” “needs intervention,” and “needs substantial intervention.” Under section 616(f) (34 CFR §300.608(a)), if in making its annual determinations, a State education agency (SEA) determines that an LEA is not meeting the requirements of Part B, including meeting targets in the State’s performance plan, the SEA must prohibit that LEA from reducing its MOE under IDEA section 613(a)(2)(C) for any fiscal year.
The Department currently requires SEAs, in making these annual LEA determinations, to use indicators that relate directly to LEA compliance with IDEA requirements, such as those addressing timely evaluations; disproportionate representation based on race and ethnicity in special education and related services that is the result of inappropriate identification; early childhood and secondary school transitions; as well as whether the LEA provided valid, reliable, and timely data on all of the indicators, among other factors. However, SEAs also have the option of using indicators related to LEA performance in other critical areas, such as graduation rates or performance on assessments, in determining which LEAs will achieve “meets requirements” status. As part of its monitoring responsibilities, the Office of Special Education Programs has been reviewing how States make LEA determinations, and will continue to do so.
While I understand that many LEAs want the flexibility to reduce local, or State and local, special education funding to free up those funds for activities authorized under the ESEA, I urge States to maintain high standards and not compromise the section 616 determination process. It is each State’s responsibility to ensure that this process is implemented in a rigorous manner, with a focus on improving results for students with disabilities and ensuring that appropriate special education and related services are provided. I strongly advise States not to eliminate consideration of important performance indicators (such as graduation rates or performance on assessments) in making these determinations. I believe that these performance indicators are valuable measures of the overall success of an agency’s efforts to provide high-quality special education services to children with disabilities. Finally, I strongly encourage States to further the transparency of the determinations process by informing the public of the criteria used in making LEA determinations and the determination category of each LEA in the State by posting this information on the SEA’s Internet Web site.
Thank you for your continued interest in improving results for children with disabilities.
Sincerely,
/ s /
Arne Duncan