Detailed Information on the
IDEA Special Education Grants to States Assessment

Provide a $1 billion increase for this program. While there is no evidence that this program improves outcomes, the Administration has determined this increase is necessary to help states and schools meet their responsibilities under the IDEA while at the same time attempting to demonstrate the program is achieving real results.

Work with Congress on the IDEA reauthorization to increase the Act's focus on accountability and results, and reduce unnecessary regulatory and administrative burdens.

Collect timely NAEP data for students with disabilities that meet the same standards as other NAEP data.

Improve collaboration with other Federal programs.

Conduct an independent evaluation of the program of sufficient scope to determine if and how the program contributes to the effectiveness of special education programs and their impact on students.

Identify strategies in key topic areas that have potential for improving results for children with disabilities.

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic in reading on the NAEP.

Explanation:The NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Assessments are not conducted every year.

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students with disabilities scoring at or above Basic in mathematics on the NAEP.

Explanation:The NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Assessments are not conducted every year.

Measure: The percentage of fourth-grade students with disabilities included in the NAEP reading sample who are excluded from testing.

Explanation:The NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Assessments are not conducted every year.

Measure: The percentage of eighth-grade students with disabilities included in the NAEP mathematics sample who are excluded from testing.

Explanation:The NAEP is the National Assessment of Educational Progress conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Assessments are not conducted every year.

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities who graduate from high school with a regular high school diploma.

Explanation:Data are collected annually from the states by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and EDEN/EDFACTS. In 2004 the indicator was revised to reflect children who had "Moved, Not Known to Have Continued" in education as having left school by dropping out. This affected the denominator for calculating this indicator.

Measure: The percentage of students with disabilities who drop out of school.

Explanation:Data are collected annually from the states by the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and EDEN/EDFACTS. In 2004 the indicator was revised to reflect children who had "Moved, Not Known to Have Continued" in education as having left school by dropping out. This affected the numerator and denominator for calculating this indicator.

Measure: The percentage of children with disabilities who are either competitively employed, enrolled in some type of postsecondary school, or both, within two years of leaving high school.

Explanation:Data for the indicator are collected through longitudinal studies and, therefore, they are available only intermittently. The Department of Education anticipates developing a new indicator on postsecondary outcomes when new State data collection requirements are fully implemented.

Measure: The average number of workdays between the completion of a site visit and OSEP's response.

Explanation:The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) - Monitoring and State Improvement Planning Division staff collect and summarize annual data from records of monitoring visits to States. The OSEP response to the States is a letter of findings providing ED's views on how States are implementing their special education programs under the IDEA.

Measure: The percentage of students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments.

Explanation:Data are collected from states through Consolidated Performance Reports and EDEN/EDFACTS.

Measure: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments.

Explanation:Data are collected from states through Consolidated Performance Reports and EDEN/EDFACTS.

Measure: The difference between the percentage of students with disabilities in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state reading assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state mathematic assessments.

Explanation:Data are collected from states through Consolidated Performance Reports and EDEN/EDFACTS.

Measure: The percentage of students in grades 3-8 scoring at the proficient or advanced levels on state mathematic assessments.

Explanation:Data are collected from states through Consolidated Performance Reports and EDEN/EDFACTS.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program helps States and local educational agencies provide children with disabilities access to high quality education that meets challenging standards and prepares them for higher education, employment and independent living. However, many educational and State organizations, Members of Congress and others believe the program's main purpose should be to provide financial relief to school districts to help pay for special education.

Evidence: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and legislative history. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, enacted on December 3, 2004, amended the IDEA. The purpose of the Grants to States program is to provide grants to assist States, outlying areas, freely associated States and the Department of the Interior to provide special education and related services to children with disabilities in accordance with IDEA Part B, which authorizes the program. The amendments added several new requirements to Part B that increase the program focus on improving results for children. A copy of the amendments is at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program addresses specific needs of children with disabilities by: (1) ensuring access to education for children with disabilities by establishing basic service requirements that, in the absence of the program, might not be met; (2) improving educational outcomes of students with disabilities, who consistently do not perform as well as their nondisabled peers; and (3) providing financial assistance to States and Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) to help pay for special education and related services.

Evidence: Access to education for all children is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States (implicitly through the Equal Protection Clause), many State constitutions and laws, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. However, the IDEA statute defines more specifically how States and LEAs provide this access for children with disabilities.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: This program does not duplicate other Federal programs. Federally-run schools that provide special education (e.g., Department of Defense and Bureau of Indian Affairs schools) adhere to the IDEA's programmatic requirements. While States and LEAs pay for most of the costs of special education, the Federal program helps ensure that a minimum level of services and protections are provided to children with disabilities in each State.

Evidence: There are no other programs in the Department of Education that overlap with the Grants to States program. While the ESEA Grants to Local Educational Agencies and the IDEA Grants to States program overlap in that a disproportionate number of children are both poor and have disabilities, most of the children served by the Grants to Local Educational Agencies program do not have disabilities, and most children served under the Grants to States program are not poor. We have not identified overlapping programs outside the Department. YES 20%

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is based on partnerships between the Federal Government, States, and LEAs, with each partner contributing resources toward the education of children with disabilities. To receive funds under this program, States and LEAs must follow the IDEA statute's specific requirements regarding the services provided, due process protections, etc. Still, while this program leverages how States/LEAs provide special education, it has less of an ability to ensure this education is of high quality. There is no conclusive proof that another approach would be more efficient or effective in meeting the purposes of the program. However, the absence of conclusive evidence does not mean that program improvements are not needed.

Evidence: IDEA Sections 612-613 spell out the program's major requirements. Since every State accepts IDEA funding, they have all agreed to follow the law's specific requirements. The Department of Education's monitoring activities evaluate the degree to which States comply with these requirements.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Funds provided to States and LEAs under the program must be used to help provide special education and related services to children with disabilities except in a limited number of situations, as provided for by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. For example, LEAs may now use a portion of their Federal funds to provide early intervening services for children who have not been identified as needing special education or related services, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment. With these services it may be found that these children will not ultimately require special education or that their special education needs may be reduced.

Evidence: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, P.L. 108-446. (See especially sections 613(a)(2) and 613(f) of the amended IDEA). A copy of the amendments is at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Department has established long-term indicators, measures, and targets that meaningfully reflect outcomes for children with disabilities. These indicators include graduation rates, drop-outs rates, performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and postsecondary employment and education. They also include indicators and goals related to State Adequate Yearly Progress for children with disabilities under the No Child Left Behind Act. One problem with indicators on graduations and drop-outs is that data collected for these indicators cannot be put in the context of outcomes for all children because of differences in the way data is collected for children with disabilities versus children in general. The Department is working to resolve this problem through its Performance-Based Data Management Initiative.

Evidence: Budget Justification to Congress. The Department of Education Performance-Based Management Initiative (PBDMI) www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/sas/pbdmi/index.html

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The established targets and timelines for program indicators are ambitious and challenging. For example, the target percentages for the graduation of students with disabilities with regular diplomas increases by 1 percent each year, and the target percentages for students with disabilities decrease by 1 percent each year. These targets may appear to be modest, but, given that the successful high school outcomes are the results of years of education from pre-K through high school, they are ambitious and challenging. Recent increases in graduation rates and reductions in drop out rates also indicate that these targets are realistic. Between 2000 and 2004, graduation rates increased from 46 percent to 54 percent and the drop out rate decreased from 42 percent to 31 percent.

Evidence: FY 2006 Budget Justification to Congress, Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Plan (see www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf)

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The annual performance measures for the program are drawn from GPRA and are the same as the long-term performance measures for the program. They are discrete, quantifiable and measurable. For example, two Grants to States measures deal with the performance of children on assessments. One of these measures is performance on State assessments used to assess Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the No Child Left Behind Act while the other assesses progress on the National Center for Education Statistics' National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The Department has developed an operational efficiency measure to assess how quickly monitoring reports can be turned around for the States in order to help them identify deficiencies in program operations.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification to Congress. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Plan (see www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf) YES 12%

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The program has baselines and ambitious targets for most of its annual measures. These include performance on the NAEP, graduation rates, drop out rates, and State efforts in achieving AYP.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification to Congress. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Plan (see www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf)

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 amended IDEA to require each States to develop a performance plan, which must be approved by the Secretary of Education. These performance plans are tied to the submission of a variety of performance data in areas critical to improving results for children with disabilities, including areas targeted by program indicators. OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process further helps to focus States and LEAs on critical areas such as graduation and drop-outs. OSEP also collaborates with other Federal entities. For example, it has conducted joint site monitoring with the Rehabilitation Services Administration, serves on a multi-agency work group making recommendations on the implementation of the President's Executive Order on Coordination of Human Transportation Services, and, through its National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, worked with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard.

Evidence: IDEA Sections 616 and 618. April 6, 2004 memorandum from OSEP to Chief State School Officers on Implementation of OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System. www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. See OSEP Memorandum 04-09. A copy of the IDEA amendments is at frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Department has conducted several longitudinal program evaluations, including a National Longitudinal Transition Study - (NLTS-2), which followed up on the findings of a prior study, the National Longitudinal Transition Study - 1 (NLTS-1). These studies have collected a wide range of information on children of all ages, including information on outcomes, demographics, and services provided. However, by itself, the NLTS-2 evaluation is not of sufficient scope to determine if and how the Part B Grants to States program contributed to the effectiveness of special education programs and their impact on student outcomes.

Evidence: The National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2)(www.nlts2.org), the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) (www.seels.net), State and Local Implementation of IDEA (SLIIDEA)(www.abt.sliidea.org), and the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS) (www.peels.org).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: While IDEA funding has more than quadrupled in recent years, there is no evidence that this increased funding has directly improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities. State and local responsibilities for educating children with disabilities are not affected by changes in the Federal funding. While data show improved outcomes for children with disabilities, there is no demonstrated relationship between Federal funding and these improvements.

Evidence: The IDEA statute's requirements, and the number of children served under IDEA, are not contingent upon the size of the Federal appropriation.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department has established a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals and a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving long-term goals. In reviewing and developing these goals, a number of corrections and modifications were made. For example, with regard to collecting drop-out data from States, ED found that many children who were reported under a category "Moved, Not Known to Have Continued" in education, were actually dropping out. To address this problem the program indicator dealing with drop-outs was revised to include children who moved but were not known to have continued in education. Because of the lack of information dealing with postsecondary outcome, an indicator in this area has been adopted.

Evidence: Between the 1999-2000 school year and the 2002-2003 school year, the number of students with disabilities reported by States as "Moved, Not Known to Have Continued" dropped from 67,289 to 44,576. Data on postsecondary outcomes is also now collected from States through Annual Performance Reports. FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification to Congress. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Plan (see www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf)

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Department of Education collects a wide range of data through Annual Performance Reports from States. Data on critical performance areas are used in OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process, which targets monitoring and technical assistance on those States that show poor performance. One problem in using and interpreting data arises from the fact that each State has its own standards regarding some of the variables that affect data. For example, States with lower standards for graduation are likely to appear to be better performers than States with higher standards even though the States with higher standards may be providing higher quality education to children with disabilities.

Evidence: Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA (www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html); Web data (www.ideadata.org/AnnualTables.asp); Annual Performance Report (www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html); April 6, 2004 memorandum from OSEP to Chief State School Officers on Implementation of OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html). See OSEP Memorandum 04-09. IDEA sections 616 and 618. A copy of the IDEA amendments is at frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The "organizational priorities" element of the new EDPAS Employee Performance Plan measures each employee's contribution to success in meeting agency goals and objectives. The job specific standards developed under this element are results driven and reflect each employee's accountability for achieving measurable results. Those results are linked to applicable Strategic Plan responsibilities, specific GPRA indicators, the Blueprint for Management Excellence and other organizational goals and objectives that are aligned with the President's Management Agenda and ED's mission and vision. In OSEP, the Director and Division directors are responsible for developing annual and long-term performance goals, measures, and targets, and data collection strategies and instruments needed to measure performance. In addition, a Continuous Improvement Monitoring System has been implemented by OSEP to focus monitoring on those areas that are most critical to improving results for children with disabilities. Many of these areas are reflected in the program's GPRA indicators. The recently enacted Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act also establishes new requirements for States to develop and implement plans to improve results for children with disabilities, and to report on their success in these efforts.

Evidence: Department of Education EDPAS system, IDEA section 616. April 6, 2004 memorandum from OSEP to Chief State School Officers on Implementation of OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. See OSEP Memorandum 04-09. YES 11%

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Federal funds pay for only a small percentage of the total cost of special education. The IDEA statute provides broad authority for how Federal funds can be used. When Federal funds are found to be improperly spent it is usually due to an accounting error. Federal obligations are consistently made in a timely manner. OSEP personnel review the expenditure amounts of grantees monthly (more frequently as the end of the fiscal year approaches) to identify and address potential problems in the liquidation of obligations. Unexpended balances from prior years have been substantially reduced in the last two years.

Evidence: http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/grantaward/start.cfm search 84.027. YES 11%

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Department is engaged in several activities designed to improve program efficiency. OSEPs Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process (CIFMP) seeks to focus Federal managers and grantees on those areas that are most likely to improve results for children with disabilities. The Department is also taking positive steps in collecting data on children with disabilities and other children through its Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI). This initiative is a collaborative effort among the Department, SEAs, and industry partners to improve the quality and timeliness of education information. It will produce an Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN), which will provide timely performance data to education decision makers and grant managers, streamline the data collection process, and reduce the burden of grant reporting. The Department has an operational efficiency measure to assess how quickly monitoring reports can be turned around. This can help OSEP and the States identify deficiencies in program operations and improve program performance.

Evidence: April 6, 2004 memorandum from OSEP to Chief State School Officers on Implementation of OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System. www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. See OSEP Memorandum 04-09. EDEN spring 2005 newsletter at www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/sas/pbdmi/eden/newsletter/spring2005.htmlPBDMI information at www.ed.gov/pbdmi

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Under the IDEA, improving results for children with disabilities is a collaborative effort including Federal, State, and local partners. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 amended IDEA to reinforce this partnership by requiring each State to develop a State Performance Plan, which must be approved by the Secretary of Education. These plans must reflect how the States will improve implementation of the IDEA at the State and local levels. OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring Process further helps to focus States and LEAs on critical areas such as graduation and drop-outs. To assist States in implementing their plans, OSEP maintains a technical assistance network, which provides, among other things, information on best practices in special education. OSEP also collaborates with other Federal entities. For example, it has conducted joint site monitoring with the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), serves on a multi-agency work group making recommendations on the implementation of the President's Executive Order on Coordination of Human Transportation Services, and, through its National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, worked with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop the National Instructional Materials Accessibility Standard. The FY 2006 President's Budget request included a joint OSEP/RSA initiative to improve transition services for children with disabilities.

Evidence: April 6, 2004 memorandum from OSEP to Chief State School Officers on Implementation of OSEP's Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System. www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. See OSEP Memorandum 04-09. OSEP technical assistance network information is at www.ed.gov/parents/needs/speced/resources.html. A copy of the IDEA amendments is at frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf - see particularly section 616.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department conducts periodic monitoring of State activities under this program, and States are required to conduct annual audits of their education programs. No internal control weaknesses have been reported by auditors. Few audit problems related to use of funds are encountered. The IDEA amendments of 1997 made a number of changes in the way funds are distributed within States. A number of States incorrectly applied the new formula for within State distributions. These errors were found and corrected.

Evidence: Information on Grants to States monitoring can be found at www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department routinely reviews program management to identify weaknesses. Over the last two years these reviews have addressed timely issuance of monitoring reports, tracking of required corrective actions from States, and tracking States' draw down of funds. Procedures for developing and issuing monitoring reports were revised and reports are now issued in an average of 4 months after a visit as compared to the previous average of 13 months. A data base was developed to track due dates for State submissions of corrective actions and program timelines for responding to the submissions. Finally, the Department has implemented a systematic process of reviewing the Department's Grant Award and Payment System (GAPS) data to determine if States have drawn down a reasonable percentage of funds. As a result of this process, the amount of funds remaining unspent at the end of the 27 months of availability for obligation has decreased from $28.4 million in 2002 to $2.9 million in 2004.

Evidence: See information on monitoring at www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: The Department obtains extensive information about State and LEA activities under this program through its Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process, which is used to monitor State compliance with the IDEA. The major source of information on the use of funds comes from annual Single Audits of Federal programs required to be conducted by States either directly or through contracts. The results of these audits are provided to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse provides audit findings as, appropriate, to each agency. Within the Department of Education, these findings are then disseminated by the Office of Financial Management to individual programs, which are responsible for ensuring that corrective action is taken if necessary.

Evidence: See information on program Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) and performance reports at www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. See Federal Audit Clearinghouse at harvester.census.gov/sac/

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Department of Education makes State program performance data available to the public through a variety of means, including Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA, postings of data reported by States under section 618 of the IDEA, and Annual Performance Reports from States. All of these are made available over the Internet.

Evidence: See Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA at www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/index.html. See State reported data under IDEA section 618 at www.ideadata.org/AnnualTables.asp. See information on program Continuous Improvement and Focused Monitoring System (CIFMS) and performance reports at www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/monitor/index.html. YES 11%

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The program is making adequate progress in meeting several of its long-term goals. The long-term goals of the program are generally extensions of the annual performance goals (graduation rates, drop-out rates, and performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)). For example, between 2000 and 2004, drop-out rates for children with disabilities fell progressively from 42 percent, to 41 percent, to 38 percent, to 34 percent, to 31 percent - well on track to meet the long-term goals. The long-term goal for States established by NCLB is that by 2014 all students will meet or exceed the States' proficiency levels for academic achievement on State assessments. The short-term goal for children with disabilities is that 25 States report progress in meeting their goals. However, it remains to be seen how many more States could improve their performance to meet the NCLB's 2014 goals.

Evidence: FY 2006 Congressional Budget Justification to Congress. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Plan (see www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf). NCLB section 1111(b)(2)(F). Progress toward the long-term goal to improved postsecondary outcomes are currently collected through periodic longitudinal studies. Data from these studies indicate that the percentage of students employed or enrolled in postsecondary education or both increased from 52 percent for 1987 to 59 percent for 2003. Starting in 2005, some data on postsecondary outcomes are being collected through Annual Performance Reports provided by States.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program is meeting its short term goals. Graduation rates and NAEP performance are improving, and drop-out rates are declining. Moreover, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 reinforced the link between Federal and State goals by directing the Department to consider relevant data (such as graduation and drop out rates) in monitoring States. Meeting AYP goals established by States under NCLB is reflected in one of the program's goals. Meeting AYP goals is also expected to have a positive impact on graduation rates, NAEP performance, and drop-out rates.

Evidence: Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. A copy of the amendments is at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ446.108.pdf. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Department of Education Fiscal Year 2006 Performance Plan (see http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf) Department of Education Revised Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Plan (see http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/2006plan/fy06perfplan.pdf). There are two problems with NAEP data. First, some unknown number of children disabilities are excluded from the NAEP sample because they go to schools specifically for children with disabilities. These schools are not included in the NAEP sample base. The number of these children is relatively small. Also, within the sample base, a large proportion (3 percent to 5 percent of all children or about 1/3 of children with disabilities) are excluded from testing because of their disabilities. In determining AYP States may assess up to 2 percent of children using modified assessments and up to 1 percent using alternate assessments against alternate standards.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The Department has developed a new efficiency measure to determine how quickly ED can provide findings reports back to the States after monitoring visits. However, there are not sufficient data to determine if program has demonstrated improved efficiencies.

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no comparable programs serving this population.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The Department has supported a number of evaluations showing positive results for students with disabilities over time. For example, data collected to date by two National Longitudinal Transition Studies (1984-1993 and 2001-2010) show that the school completion rate of youth with disabilities increased and the dropout rate decreased by 17 percentage points between 1987 and 2003. In addition, the rate of postsecondary education participation in 2- or 4-year colleges or postsecondary vocational, technical, and business schools by youth with disabilities more than doubled, increasing to 32 percent of youth who had been out of high school up to 2 years. However, by themselves, these longitudinal studies are not of sufficient scope to determine if and how the Part B Grants to States program contributed to the effectiveness of special education programs and their impact on student outcomes.

Evidence: See response to question 2.6. The National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2)(www.nlts2.org), the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) (www.seels.net), State and Local Implementation of IDEA (SLIIDEA)(www.abt.sliidea.org), and the Pre-Elementary Education Longitudinal Study (PEELS) (www.peels.org). NO 0%