[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26522-26531]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10831]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Proposed Priority; Technical Assistance on State Data Collection, 
Analysis, and Reporting--National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on 
Early Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems; CFDA Number 84.373Z

AGENCY: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, 
Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 
Rehabilitative Services proposes a priority under the Technical 
Assistance on State Data Collection program. The Assistant Secretary 
may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and 
later years. We take this action to focus attention on an identified 
national need to provide technical assistance (TA) to States to improve 
their capacity to meet the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
(IDEA) data collection, analysis, and reporting requirements.
    We propose to assist States in developing or enhancing statewide 
early childhood longitudinal data systems, by which we mean data 
systems that include child-level data for infants, toddlers, and young 
children with disabilities (birth through age 5) served through early 
childhood programs under IDEA Part C and Part B preschool programs. 
These statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems would be part 
of a coordinated early learning data system, by which we mean data 
systems that vertically and horizontally link child, program, and 
workforce data elements related to children (birth through age 5). This 
TA will build States' capacity to report high-quality data to meet IDEA 
reporting requirements.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about this notice to Meredith Miceli, 
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4069, 
Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2600. If you prefer to send 
your comments by email, use the following address: 
[email protected].
    You must include the term ``Data Collection Priority'' in the 
subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Meredith Miceli. Telephone: (202) 245-
6028.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Invitation To Comment: We invite you to 
submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments 
have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge 
you to identify clearly the specific topic that each comment addresses.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall 
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this 
proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving 
the effective and efficient administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this notice in room 4069, 550 12th Street SW., Potomac 
Center Plaza, Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 
p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except 
Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please

[[Page 26523]]

contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Purpose of Program: The purpose of the Technical Assistance on 
State Data Collection program is to improve the capacity of States to 
meet IDEA data collection and reporting requirements. Funding for the 
program is authorized under section 611(c)(1) of IDEA, which gives the 
Secretary the authority to reserve funds appropriated under Part B to 
provide TA activities authorized under section 616(i). Section 616(i) 
requires the Secretary to review the data collection and analysis 
capacity of States to ensure that data and information determined 
necessary for implementation of section 616 of IDEA are collected, 
analyzed, and accurately reported. It also requires the Secretary to 
provide TA, where needed, to improve the capacity of States to meet the 
data collection requirements under IDEA.
    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1411(c), 1416(i), and 1418(c).
    PROPOSED PRIORITY:
    This notice contains one proposed priority.
    National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood 
Longitudinal Data Systems.
    Background: States must provide an assurance that they will meet 
the Federal reporting requirements under the IDEA Part C and Part B 
preschool programs in order to receive these IDEA grant funds. IDEA 
reporting requirements include a State's submission of data as part of 
its State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 
under section 616 of IDEA, as well as data required under section 618 
of IDEA.
    In the APR, each State must report to the Department on its 
progress in meeting the measurable and rigorous targets for each of the 
Part C indicators and Part B indicators.\1\ Each State must report to 
the public, by posting on the State agency's Web site, data on the 
performance of each local program in meeting the targets under each 
indicator. In the APR, States must also provide both quantitative data 
under each of the indicators and qualitative information, such as an 
explanation of how the State's data reflect progress or lack of 
progress (i.e., ``slippage'') in meeting the State's targets under each 
indicator, and an analysis of how the State's improvement activities 
\2\ address the factors that contributed to the State's progress or 
slippage in the data for each indicator. In the SPP, a State identifies 
and, where appropriate, revises its improvement activities based on its 
analysis of this qualitative and quantitative information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The following Web sites provide more information on the 616 
SPP/APR Indicators: www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/index.html and www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/bapr/index.html.
    \2\ States are required to describe the improvement activities 
they implemented to improve performance for each indicator, 
including activities, timelines, and resources, in the Annual 
Performance Report under section 616 of IDEA. Source: Part C State 
Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 
Instruction Sheet. Available from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/capr/2012/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, under section 618 of IDEA, States are required to 
annually collect and report data on infants, toddlers, and children 
with disabilities. States provide data on the number of eligible 
children served (``child count''), educational environments, 
discipline, dispute resolution, and personnel employed to provide 
services for children with disabilities, including children from ages 3 
through 5 receiving services under IDEA Part B. States must also 
collect and report child count, exiting, dispute resolution, and 
service settings data for infants and toddlers receiving services under 
IDEA Part C.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The following Web sites provide more information on IDEA 618 
data tables: www.ideadata.org/PartCForms.asp and www.ideadata.org/PartBForms.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States, however, face significant practical challenges in 
successfully reporting to the Department and to the public the high-
quality data required under the IDEA. The data States are required to 
collect and report in their IDEA Part B and Part C APRs include 
preschool and early intervention data that may be maintained by more 
than one entity, and each program needs information and data that are 
maintained by another program.
    For example, to obtain accurate early childhood transition data to 
report under SPP/APR Indicators C8 and B12, which are included in 
Appendices A and B to this notice, sharing information between the IDEA 
Part C early intervention program and the IDEA Part B preschool program 
is required. Additionally, in order to analyze and report on the Part C 
child find \4\ data under SPP/APR Indicators C5 and C6, which are 
included in Appendix B to this notice, the State must cross-validate 
its early intervention data with data from specific primary referral 
sources (e.g., the newborn hearing screening programs, maternal and 
child health or other programs that do not provide IDEA services) that 
may not be part of an IDEA early childhood data system. Even in 
situations where States are sharing data to meet IDEA reporting 
requirements, there are concerns about the quality of the data shared 
between agencies. In addition, appropriately sharing personally 
identifiable information between and among the various State agencies 
responsible for managing the data systems, while still ensuring 
compliance with the privacy protections under the Family Educational 
Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and IDEA Parts B and C, is a challenge 
for many States (Keller-Allen, 2009).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For the purposes of this priority, ``child find'' is defined 
as ``all children with disabilities residing in the State, including 
children with disabilities who are homeless children or are wards of 
the State and children with disabilities attending private schools, 
regardless of the severity of their disabilities, and who are in 
need of special education and related services, are identified, 
located, and evaluated and a practical method is developed and 
implemented to determine which children with disabilities are 
currently receiving needed special education and related services'' 
(20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3)(A)).
    \5\ Keller-Allen, C. (April 2009). Using unique identifiers to 
promote data sharing between Part C and Part B. Retrieved August 24, 
2010 from: www.projectforum.org/docs/UsingUniqueIdentifierstoPromoteDataSharingBtwnPartCandPartB.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States can address these challenges, in part, by coordinating their 
data systems to link and share certain child-level data vertically 
(i.e., across different age ranges) across programs serving children 
with disabilities at different age ranges over time (i.e., birth 
through age 2, age 3 through 5/preschool, age 6 through 21/school age).
    States can also improve their IDEA data reporting by linking and 
sharing data horizontally (sharing data across programs for the same 
child) across various early learning and development programs \6\ 
serving infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities at a 
particular time (e.g., child care, home visiting programs, Head Start, 
Early Head Start, and publicly unded State preschool programs and 
services). Taking these steps can help States improve the quality 
(i.e., reliability and validity) of the qualitative and

[[Page 26524]]

quantitative data they must report to meet IDEA reporting requirements. 
In developing such a data system, a State must also meet critical data 
management, governance, and requirements to protect the confidentiality 
of these infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities and 
their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For the purposes of this priority, ``early learning and 
development program'' means ``any (a) State-licensed or State-
regulated program or provider, regardless of setting or funding 
source, that provides early care and education for children from 
birth to kindergarten entry, including, but not limited to, any 
program operated by a child care center or in a family child care 
home; (b) preschool program funded by the Federal Government or 
State or local educational agencies (including any IDEA-funded 
program); (c) Early Head Start and Head Start program; and (d) a 
non-relative child care provider who is not otherwise regulated by 
the State and who regularly cares for two or more unrelated children 
for a fee in a provider setting. A State should include in this 
definition other programs that may deliver early learning and 
development services in a child's home, such as the Maternal, Infant 
and Early Childhood Home Visiting; Early Head Start; and part C of 
IDEA.'' 76 FR 53569 (August 26, 2011). Application for New Awards: 
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge. Available at: 
www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/26/2011-21756/applications-for-new-awards-race-to-the-top-early-learning-challenge#p-122.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously noted, within a State, data about children with 
disabilities from birth through age 5 typically originate from multiple 
sources and are managed and stored within multiple organizations with 
different operating procedures. Therefore, in order to coordinate and 
report high-quality data to meet the IDEA reporting requirements, a 
State must implement a data governance plan. Many States, however, may 
not have sufficiently detailed governance plans for data on infants, 
toddlers, and children with disabilities.
    Data governance provides a structure for a diverse group with 
shared responsibility for high-quality data to establish and implement 
policies and procedures to manage data and information (Privacy 
Technical Assistance Center, n.d.\7\) and evaluate and address data 
quality issues (Cheong & Chang, 2007; \8\ Neely & Cook, 2011 \9\). 
Examples of data quality issues related to the data that are collected 
on children with disabilities include timeliness of data submissions to 
the Department, accuracy of data elements being reported, and 
completeness of data submissions. Thus, a data governance plan would 
provide an organizing structure that would build shared understanding 
among agencies that collect such data about responsibilities, policies, 
and procedures for data quality management, and it would clarify 
expectations for data and information management including those for 
personnel who collect, store, validate, and use the data. Such a plan 
would also allow the State to meet its responsibilities to ensure that 
child-level data are maintained securely and that the State meets the 
confidentiality requirements under IDEA and FERPA and other applicable 
Federal, State, and local confidentiality requirements (Haug & 
Arlbjorn, 2011; \10\ Neely & Cook, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Privacy Technical Assistance Center. Data Governance and 
Stewardship. Retrieved on April 17, 2012 from: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/pdf/issue-brief-data-governance-and-stewardship.pdf.
    \8\ Cheoung, L.K. & Chang, V. (2007). The Need for Data 
Governance: A Case Study. ACIS 2007 Proceedings. Paper 100. http://aisel.aisnet.org/acis2007/100.
    \9\ Neely, M.P., Cook, J.S. (2011). Fifteen Years of Data and 
Information Quality Literature: Developing a Research Agenda for 
Accounting. Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), pp. 79-108.
    \10\ Haug, A. & Arlbjorn, J.S. (2011). Barriers to Master Data 
Quality. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 24(3), pp. 
288-303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the priority we are proposing in this notice, the grantee 
would be required to assist States in meeting these challenges, and 
specifically to provide TA to States on the development and enhancement 
of statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems that link child-
level data for children served under the IDEA that are collected 
through those programs providing IDEA services to those other programs 
that provide early childhood education, care, and health services to 
children served under the IDEA. These statewide early childhood 
longitudinal data systems would be part of a State's coordinated early 
learning data system, by which we mean a data system that vertically 
and horizontally links child, program, and workforce data related to 
children (birth through age 5).
    Thus, such a system should horizontally link States' early 
childhood IDEA Part C and Part B preschool data to other early learning 
data systems to the extent that such systems collect data that are 
similar to the quantitative and qualitative information reported under 
IDEA. For example, data on the settings in which children receive 
services are collected not only by the State programs implementing 
IDEA, but also by child care, home visiting programs, Head Start, Early 
Head Start, and publicly funded State preschool programs.
    A coordinated early learning data system should also vertically 
link a State's early childhood IDEA Part C and Part B preschool data to 
other statewide longitudinal data systems to the extent that such 
systems collect data on the quantitative and qualitative information 
reported under IDEA. For example, transition and child outcome 
information are collected and analyzed by State programs implementing 
the IDEA but are also found in other data systems of school-aged 
children, such as pre-kindergarten (P)-grade 12 systems, kindergarten 
(K)-grade 12 systems, P-grade 20 systems, and K-grade 20 systems.
    The Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge program \11\ and the 
Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) program \12\ identify the 
following as essential data elements for a coordinated early learning 
data system: 13 14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For additional information on the Race to the Top--Early 
Learning Challenge, please see: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/index.html.
    \12\ For additional information on the SLDS program, please see: 
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/.
    \13\ U.S. Department of Education (2011). Race to the Top--Early 
Learning Challenge Application for Initial Funding. Retrieved March 
13, 2012 from: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/2011-412.doc.
    \14\ U.S. Department of Education (2011). Request for 
Applications: Grants for Statewide, Longitudinal Data Systems. 
Retrieved March 13, 2012 from: http://ies.ed.gov/funding/pdf/2012_84372.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. A unique statewide child identifier or another highly accurate, 
proven method to link data on that child, including Kindergarten Entry 
Assessment \15\ data, to and from the Statewide Longitudinal Data 
System and the coordinated early learning data system (if applicable);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ For the purposes of this priority, ``kindergarten entry 
assessment'' means ``an assessment that: (a) Is administered to 
children during the first few months of their admission into 
kindergarten; (b) covers all Essential Domains of School Readiness; 
(c) is used in conformance with the recommendations of the National 
Research Council reports on early childhood; and (d) is valid and 
reliable for its intended purposes and for the target populations 
and aligned to the Early Learning and Development Standards. Results 
of the assessment should be used to inform efforts to close the 
school readiness gap at kindergarten entry and to inform instruction 
in the early elementary school grades. This assessment should not be 
used to prevent children's entry into kindergarten'' (U.S. 
Department of Education, 2011, Race to the Top--Early Learning 
Challenge Application for Initial Funding, page 17).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. A unique statewide Early Childhood Educator identifier;
    3. A unique program site identifier;
    4. Child and family demographic information;
    5. Early Childhood Educator demographic information, including data 
on educational attainment and State credential or licenses held, as 
well as professional development information;
    6. Program-level data on the program's structure, quality, child 
suspension and expulsion rates, staff retention, staff compensation, 
work environment, and all applicable data reported as part of the 
State's Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System; \16\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For the purposes of this priority, ``Tiered Quality Rating 
and Improvement System'' means ``the system through which the State 
uses a set of progressively higher Program Standards to evaluate the 
quality of an Early Learning and Development Program and to support 
program improvement. A Tiered Quality Rating and Improvement System 
consists of four components: (a) Tiered Program Standards with 
multiple rating categories that clearly and meaningfully 
differentiate program quality levels; (b) monitoring to evaluate 
program quality based on the Program Standards; (c) supports to help 
programs meet progressively higher standards (e.g., through 
training, technical assistance, financial support); and (d) program 
quality ratings that are publically available; and includes a 
process for validating the system'' (U.S. Department of Education, 
2011, Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge Application for 
Initial Funding, page 19).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 26525]]

    7. Child-level program participation and attendance data.
    Establishing coordinated early learning data systems that have 
these elements is important to improve the quality of data because 
these systems require States and other entities to standardize data 
definitions and submission procedures. Linking systems also offers 
opportunities for States to validate and analyze data across programs 
to improve the quality of the data States must report under the IDEA to 
both the Department and the public.
    For example, if Head Start data were linked horizontally to data 
collected under the Part B preschool program, a State could validate 
the time the child is spending in the regular early childhood program 
for reporting on the child's educational environments and Indicator B6, 
which is included in Appendix A to this notice. A State could also link 
its early intervention data to its preschool data and its preschool 
data to its K-12 data in order to better interpret the State's data on 
preschool and early intervention outcomes and transitions (i.e., IDEA 
section 618 Exiting data, and Indicators C3, C8, B7, and B12, which are 
included in Appendices A and B to this notice). If a State wanted to 
validate its data on positive social-emotional skills reported in 
Indicator C3, it might vertically link its Early Intervention data to 
the State's Head Start data.
    A statewide early childhood longitudinal data system that links to 
a statewide early childhood workforce system, which includes data on 
IDEA service providers' qualifications, could also allow States to 
improve the quality of the personnel data they submit to meet IDEA 
reporting requirements. By linking data on children receiving special 
education services in an IDEA Part B, preschool program to data on 
early childhood program providers and those providers' qualifications, 
a State could validate its data on the qualification status of special 
education teachers, paraprofessionals, and related services personnel 
who work with young children with disabilities served under IDEA.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ States are required to report on the number of special 
education teachers, paraprofessionals, and related services 
personnel by qualification status in the IDEA Personnel data 
collection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States recognize the need to improve coordination in collecting, 
analyzing, and reporting their early childhood data. In their Federal 
fiscal year (FFY) 2009-10 APRs, a number of States identified the 
importance of horizontally and vertically linking or sharing their 
early childhood data among various programs.18 19 The States 
also identified as an improvement activity for Indicators C3 (early 
childhood outcome), C5 and C6 (child count), and B12 (early childhood 
transition), the importance of developing and implementing methods to 
share data across programs, such as IDEA Part C and Part B preschool 
programs, neonatal intensive care units, Child Abuse and Prevention 
Treatment Act programs, and Early Hearing Detection and Intervention 
programs. States also identified developing and expanding comprehensive 
data systems to capture, analyze, and report performance data as an 
improvement activity for Indicator C1 (timely service provision), which 
is included in Appendix B to this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 2011 Part C Indicator Analysis Document. (2011). Available 
at www.nectac.org/~pdfs/partc/part-c--sppapr--11.pdf.
    \19\ 2011 Part B Indicator Analysis Document. (2011). Available 
at www.nectac.org/~pdfs/sec619/part-b--sppapr--11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Federal government has provided support for States to develop 
and implement data systems that coordinate early learning and 
development data through the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 
program and the Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge program. 
However, most statewide longitudinal education data systems do not yet 
include the data on infants, toddlers, and children with disabilities 
(birth through age 5) that are needed to meet the IDEA reporting 
requirements.
    For the reasons described, to support States in the development and 
enhancement of statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems, the 
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) proposes a priority for 
funding the National IDEA Technical Assistance Center on Early 
Childhood Longitudinal Data Systems. The center would provide TA to 
States to help them horizontally link data, including child-level data, 
on the IDEA Part C and Part B preschool programs with data from other 
early learning and development programs (e.g., child care, home 
visiting programs, Head Start, Early Head Start, and publicly-funded 
State preschool programs and services) and vertically link these data 
to other statewide longitudinal education data systems, including those 
funded under the SLDS program grants (e.g., P-12 systems, K-12 systems, 
K-20 systems).
    The TA would be focused on assisting States to improve their 
capacity to report high-quality data to meet their IDEA reporting 
requirements through the development or enhancement of a statewide 
early childhood longitudinal data system. The TA would include helping 
States develop appropriate data governance plans and ensure that the 
entry, sharing, and reporting of personally identifiable information 
into the data systems complies with the privacy protections under the 
applicable IDEA Part B, IDEA Part C, and FERPA requirements. Although 
this TA would focus on the data used to meet IDEA reporting 
requirements, we intend for this early childhood data system to be 
coordinated, and not conflict, with the States' ongoing work to build 
other statewide longitudinal education data systems, including those 
funded under the SLDS program grants (e.g., P-12 systems, K-12 systems, 
and K-20 systems).
    In addition, this TA center may, but would not be required to, 
develop software or implement data services through advanced programing 
interfaces (APIs) that permit data from disparate statewide early 
childhood data systems, statewide systems for school-aged children 
(e.g., K-12 data systems, P-20 data systems), and any other early 
learning data systems to be linked and accessed from a single data 
dashboard. Any software or other technology developed through this 
grant would be required to be made available as open source and 
provided at no cost to States. In order to ensure that software or 
other technology developed through this grant is versatile enough to be 
interoperable with the different configurations of statewide data 
systems related to IDEA data collection and reporting requirements in 
each State, the grantee would be required to use the Common Education 
Data Standards.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ``The Common Education Data Standards is a specified set of 
the most commonly used education data elements to support the 
effective exchange of data within and across States, as students 
transition between educational sectors and levels, and for federal 
reporting.'' National Center for Education Statistics. Common 
Education Data Standards. Retrieved February 8, 2012 from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ceds/. For more information, see https://ceds.ed.gov/Default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Priority:
    The purpose of this proposed priority is to fund a cooperative 
agreement to support the establishment and operation of a National IDEA 
Technical Assistance Center on Early Childhood Longitudinal Data 
Systems (Center). This Center would provide TA to States on the 
development and enhancement of statewide early childhood longitudinal 
data systems to improve the States' capacity to collect, analyze, and 
report high-quality data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. 
This Center must provide TA to States on developing or enhancing 
statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems that horizontally 
link child-level data on

[[Page 26526]]

infants, toddlers, and young children with disabilities (birth through 
age 5) from one data system to child-level data in other early learning 
data systems (including those developed with funding provided by the 
Department's Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge program), 
vertically link these child-level data to statewide longitudinal data 
systems for school-aged children (including those developed with 
funding provided by the Department's SLDS program), and meet the data 
system capabilities and elements described under paragraph (b) in the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities section of this 
priority. These statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems 
should allow States to: (1) Accurately and efficiently respond to IDEA-
related data submission requirements (e.g., IDEA sections 616 and 618 
requirements); (2) continuously improve processes for defining, 
acquiring, and validating the data; and (3) comply with applicable 
Federal, State, and local privacy laws, including the requirements of 
FERPA and privacy requirements in IDEA. This TA must be focused on 
building the State's capacity to report high-quality data to meet IDEA 
reporting requirements and must be conducted in coordination with other 
statewide longitudinal data system work being conducted in the State.
    To be considered for funding under this absolute priority, 
applicants must meet the application requirements contained in this 
priority. Any project funded under this priority also must meet the 
programmatic and administrative requirements specified in the priority.
    Application Requirements. An applicant must include in its 
application--
    (a) A logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, 
activities, outputs, and outcomes of the proposed project. A logic 
model communicates how a project will achieve its outcomes and provides 
a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the 
project;

    Note:  The following Web sites provide more information on logic 
models: www.researchutilization.org/matrix/logicmodel_resource3c.html and www.tadnet.org/model_and_performance.

    (b) A plan to implement the activities described in the Project 
Activities section of this priority;
    (c) A plan, linked to the proposed project's logic model, for a 
formative evaluation of the proposed project's activities. The plan 
must describe how the formative evaluation will use clear performance 
objectives to ensure continuous improvement in the operation of the 
proposed project, including objective measures of progress in 
implementing the project and ensuring the quality of products and 
services;
    (d) A plan for recruiting and selecting a minimum of 10 States to 
receive intensive TA on developing or enhancing their statewide early 
childhood longitudinal data systems to improve the States' capacity to 
collect and report high-quality data required under sections 616 and 
618 of IDEA. This TA may include supporting each State in developing a 
statewide early childhood longitudinal data system that links to other 
statewide data systems (i.e., other statewide early learning data 
systems and statewide longitudinal education data systems) in order to 
accurately and efficiently respond to all of a State's IDEA-related 
data submission requirements for infants, toddlers, and young children 
(birth through age 5) with disabilities. The intensive TA may also 
include enhancing an existing statewide data system (e.g., SLDS) by 
including the child-level data on infants, toddlers, and young children 
(birth through age 5) with disabilities that are needed to meet the 
IDEA reporting requirements. To ensure that the Center provides TA to 
support States in overcoming the additional challenge of sharing early 
childhood data between State agencies (e.g., State Department of Health 
and State Department of Education), when selecting States for intensive 
TA, a preference must be given to States that have IDEA Part C lead 
agencies (LAs) that are not the State educational agency (SEA).

    Note:  The Center must obtain approval from OSEP on the final 
selection of intensive TA States.

    (e) To prevent duplication of TA efforts around early childhood 
data systems, a plan for, and description of, how the Center will 
collaborate with the SLDS program (including SLDS TA efforts \21\), the 
Race to the Top--Early Learning Challenge program, the Common Education 
Data Standards initiative, the Privacy Technical Assistance Center,\22\ 
and, as appropriate, other Federal programs that provide TA in the area 
of early childhood data (e.g., Comprehensive Centers program \23\);
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ More information on the SLDS TA efforts is available at 
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/pdf/TechAssistance.pdf.
    \22\ The Privacy Technical Assistance Center is one component of 
the Department's comprehensive privacy initiatives. It offers 
technical assistance to State education agencies, local education 
agencies, and institutions of higher education related to the 
Privacy, Security, and Confidentiality of student records. For the 
Privacy Technical Assistance Center Help Desk, email 
[email protected] or call, toll free, 855-249-3072. For more 
information, see http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/ptac/index.html.
    \23\ The Comprehensive Center program ``supports 21 
comprehensive centers to help increase state capacity to assist 
districts and schools meet their student achievement goals. The 16 
regional centers provide services primarily to State Education 
Agencies (SEAs) to enable them to assist school districts and 
schools, especially low performing schools. At a minimum, each 
regional center provides training and technical assistance in the 
implementation and administration of programs authorized under the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the use of 
research-based information and strategies. The five content centers 
focus on specific areas, with one center in each of five areas: 
Assessment and accountability, instruction, teacher quality, 
innovation and improvement, and high schools. These centers supply 
much of the research-based information and products in the specific 
area that regional centers use when working with SEAs.'' U.S. 
Department of Education. Comprehensive Centers Program. Retrieved 
April 17, 2012 from: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) A budget for a summative evaluation to be conducted by an 
independent third party;
    (g) A budget for attendance at the following:
    (1) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting to be held in 
Washington, DC, after receipt of the award, and an annual planning 
meeting held in Washington, DC, with the OSEP Project Officer and other 
relevant staff during each subsequent year of the project period.

    Note:  Within 30 days of the award a post-award teleconference 
must be held between the OSEP Project Officer and grantee's project 
director or other authorized representative.

    (2) A three-day Project Directors' Conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period.
    (3) A two-day Leveraging Resources Conference in Washington, DC, 
during each year of the project period.
    (4) Two two-day trips annually to attend Department briefings, 
Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by 
OSEP; and
    (h) A line item in the proposed budget for an annual set-aside of 
five percent of the grant amount to support emerging needs that are 
consistent with the proposed project's activities, as those needs are 
identified in consultation with OSEP.

    Note:  With approval from the OSEP Project Officer, the Center 
must reallocate any remaining funds from this annual set-aside no 
later than the end of the third quarter of each budget period.

    Project Activities. To meet the requirements of this priority, the 
Center, at a minimum, must conduct the following activities:

[[Page 26527]]

    Knowledge Development Activities.
    (a) Conduct a survey of all 56 Part C LAs and 56 IDEA Part B 
preschool programs administered by SEAs in the first year to assess 
their capacity to collect, analyze, and report high-quality data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA and identify the policies 
and practices that facilitate or hinder a statewide early childhood 
longitudinal data system to link to other early learning data systems 
and the statewide longitudinal educational data system for school-aged 
children (e.g., SLDS). Additionally, review State information from 
sources such as SPPs and APRs to assess State data system and data 
quality needs for the 56 LAs that have IDEA Part C programs and 56 SEAs 
that have IDEA Part B preschool programs. The Center must analyze the 
information from the surveys, SPPs/APRs, and other sources, as 
appropriate, and prepare papers that summarize the findings that can be 
disseminated according to a dissemination plan described in paragraph 
(f) of the Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities section of 
this priority. These findings must be used in the selection of States 
for intensive TA.
    (b) Using the findings from the survey described in paragraph (a), 
identify a minimum of four States to partner with to develop a 
statewide early childhood longitudinal data system framework (see 
paragraph (c)). This framework will be a TA resource for other States 
trying to develop or enhance statewide early childhood longitudinal 
data systems. Each partnering State must have commitments from its IDEA 
Part C early intervention and Part B preschool programs to participate 
in the activities of the Center. Additionally, the partnering States 
must be a combination of States with Department of Education LAs and 
non-Department of Education LAs (e.g., State Departments of Health, 
State Departments of Developmental Services). Factors for consideration 
in selecting these States could include the demographic and geographic 
characteristics of the State, the history of data system development in 
the State, and the collection and analysis of high-quality data 
required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA. There may be overlap 
between these partnering States and those States selected to receive 
intensive TA. The Center must obtain approval from OSEP on the final 
selection of partnering States.

    Note:  To fulfill the requirements of paragraph (b) of the 
Application Requirements section of this priority, applicants must 
describe the methods and criteria they propose to use to recruit and 
select the four partnering States.

    (c) Within the first year of the project period, partner with the 
States identified in paragraph (b) of this section to develop, 
implement, and evaluate a statewide early childhood longitudinal data 
system framework for IDEA Part C early intervention and Part B 
preschool programs. In developing this framework, the Center must work 
with the partner States to identify, describe, and document the 
components and processes needed to develop or enhance a statewide early 
childhood longitudinal data system that provides data necessary to 
accurately and efficiently respond to reporting requirements under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA and addresses the data system requirements 
and capabilities listed under paragraph (b) of the Technical Assistance 
and Dissemination Activities section of this priority. Through this 
work, the Center must develop guidance and exemplar tools and processes 
that any State can use to develop or enhance and implement a statewide 
early childhood longitudinal data system framework within its unique 
setting.
    (d) Develop documents and resources on best practices and lessons 
learned that can be used to improve States' capacity to develop or 
enhance their statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems for 
the purposes of collecting high-quality data required under sections 
616 and 618 of IDEA.
    Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities.
    (a) Provide intensive TA to a minimum of 10 States to develop and 
implement a project management and data governance plan with the goal 
of a fully implemented statewide early childhood longitudinal data 
system, as described in paragraph (b) of this section. The intensive TA 
will be based on the statewide early childhood longitudinal data system 
framework described in paragraph (b) of the Knowledge Development 
Activities section of this priority.

    Note:  To fulfill the requirements in paragraph (a) in the 
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities section of this 
priority, applicants must describe the methods and criteria they 
will use to recruit and select States. The Center must obtain 
approval from OSEP on the final selection of intensive TA States.

    (b) The statewide early childhood longitudinal data system must 
meet the following requirements:
    (1) Have the following specific data system capabilities:
    (i) Enable the State staff to efficiently respond to all IDEA-
related data submission requirements (e.g., sections 616 and 618 data) 
with accurate and valid IDEA data by--
    (A) Improving the quality of IDEA data related to child find, child 
count, settings, and educational environments data; and Indicators C2, 
C5, C6, and B6, which are included in Appendices A and B to this 
notice, by linking early childhood IDEA Part C and Part B preschool 
child-level data horizontally to other statewide early learning data 
systems when available (e.g., child care, home visiting programs, Head 
Start, Early Head Start, and publicly-funded State preschool programs 
and services);
    (B) Improving the quality of the IDEA data related to early 
childhood and preschool outcomes; and Indicators C3, C8, B7, and B12 by 
linking early childhood IDEA Part C and Part B preschool child-level 
data vertically to other statewide longitudinal education data systems, 
including those funded under the Department's SLDS grants (e.g., P-12 
systems, K-12 systems, P-20 systems, and K-20 systems);
    (C) Improving the quality of the IDEA personnel data by linking 
child-level early childhood IDEA Part C and Part B preschool data with 
early intervention and preschool service providers so that an 
individual child may be matched with the particular providers primarily 
responsible for providing services to that child; and
    (D) Improving the quality of the data about personnel providing 
services under IDEA Part B by linking early intervention and preschool 
service providers with data on their qualifications, certification, and 
preparation programs, including the institutions at which providers 
received their training;
    (ii) Enable the State to improve the accuracy of the IDEA data 
through validity and reliability checks (e.g., data verification) and 
to provide access to the information needed to analyze and explain 
progress or slippage in the Parts B and C indicators;
    (iii) Enable the State to examine progress in the implementation of 
IDEA (e.g., improving transitions from Part C to Part B IDEA services) 
and the outcomes (e.g., social-emotional skills, the use of appropriate 
behaviors to meet needs, and the acquisition and use of knowledge and 
skills) over time of infants, toddlers, and young children receiving 
services under IDEA and ensure data are easily generated for analysis 
and decision-making, including timely reporting to various IDEA Part C 
and preschool service providers across the State on the progress of 
infants, toddlers, and young children receiving services under IDEA; 
and

[[Page 26528]]

    (iv) Ensure the quality (i.e., validity and reliability) of all 
data.
    (2) In order to improve the State's capacity to collect and analyze 
high-quality data, have the following data system elements:
    (i) A unique statewide child identifier accepted by, and aligned 
with, the State's P-20/P-12 unique identifier that does not permit a 
child to be individually identified by users of the system (except as 
allowed by Federal and State law).
    (ii) An early intervention and preschool service provider 
identifier system with the ability to match early intervention and 
preschool service providers to children;
    (iii) Child-level enrollment, demographic, and program 
participation data.
    (iv) Child-level data on the identification of the child under IDEA 
(including data on the timeliness of the child's evaluation and 
assessment) and services identified as needed and received, including 
timeliness of services and service settings.
    (v) Child and family outcome \24\ data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ An outcome is formed by the impact that services and 
supports have on the functioning of children and families. Early 
Childhood Outcome Center. Outcomes 101: ECO Q&A. Available at: 
www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pages/faqs--view--item.cfm?id=7. For further 
information on early childhood child and family outcomes, see the 
Early Childhood Outcomes (ECO) Center Web site (www.fpg.unc.edu/
~eco/index.cfm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (vi) Child-level data about the points at which children start and 
stop receiving early intervention services or preschool special 
education services (including reasons for exiting).
    (vii) Child-level data about the extent to which children receive 
timely transition planning to support their movement to preschool and 
other appropriate community services by their third birthday.
    (viii) A State data audit system to assess data quality (i.e., 
reliability and validity).
    (3) Have a data system interoperability plan that--
    (i) Allows for linking the statewide early childhood longitudinal 
data systems to other statewide longitudinal education data systems and 
other statewide early learning data systems; and
    (ii) Complies with applicable Federal, State, and local privacy 
laws, including the requirements of FERPA and the privacy requirements 
in IDEA.
    (c) Develop and coordinate a national TA network comprised of a 
cadre of experts that the Center will use to provide TA to States to 
assist them in developing or enhancing statewide early childhood 
longitudinal data systems to improve States' capacity to collect and 
report high-quality data required under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA, 
which may include the development of open source data system software 
that addresses the unique needs of each State. General TA will be 
provided to all States and intensive TA will be provided to a minimum 
of 10 States.
    (d) Provide a continuum of general TA and dissemination activities 
(e.g., managing Web sites, listservs, and communities of practice, and 
holding conferences and training institutes) on best practices that 
promote the efficient collection of accurate and valid data required 
under sections 616 and 618 of IDEA to improve the educational results 
and functional outcomes of all children with disabilities.
    (e) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-
recognized standards for accessibility and that links to the Web site 
operated by the Technical Assistance Coordination Center (TACC).\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For more information regarding the TACC products and 
services database, please see: www.tadnet.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) Prepare and disseminate reports, documents, and other materials 
on statewide early childhood longitudinal data systems, and related 
topics as requested by OSEP for specific audiences including IDEA Part 
C LAs, SEAs, policymakers, local educational agencies, service 
providers, and teachers. In consultation with the OSEP Project Officer, 
make selected reports, documents, and other materials available for 
Part C LAs, SEAs, policymakers, local educational agencies, service 
providers, and teachers in both English and Spanish.
    (g) Develop materials and guidance for States and provide targeted 
TA related to the performance and compliance indicator(s) on their APRs 
and SPPs, as requested by OSEP.
    Leadership and Coordination Activities.
    (a) Establish and maintain an advisory committee to review the 
activities and outcomes of the Center and provide programmatic support 
and advice throughout the project period. At a minimum, the advisory 
committee must meet annually in Washington, DC, and consist of 
representatives of IDEA Part C LAs, representatives of SEAs, 
individuals with disabilities, other TA providers, parents of 
individuals with disabilities, data system experts, representatives of 
other early learning and development programs, representatives of other 
Federal offices working to improve State data systems, and software 
developers with expertise in statewide longitudinal data systems and 
interoperability. The Center must submit the names of proposed members 
of the advisory committee to OSEP for approval within eight weeks after 
receipt of the award.
    (b) Communicate and collaborate, on an ongoing basis, with OSEP-
funded projects and other relevant Federal-funded projects, including 
the SLDS program, SLDS TA efforts,\26\ the Race to the Top--Early 
Learning Challenge program, the Common Education Data Standards 
initiative,\27\ the Privacy Technical Assistance Center, and, as 
appropriate, other Federal programs that provide TA in the area of 
early childhood data (e.g., Comprehensive Centers program). This 
collaboration could include the joint development of products, the 
coordination of TA services, and the planning and carrying out of TA 
meetings and events.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ More information on the SLDS TA efforts is available at 
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/pdf/TechAssistance.pdf.
    \27\ ``The Common Education Data Standards is a specified set of 
the most commonly used education data elements to support the 
effective exchange of data within and across States, as students 
transition between educational sectors and levels, and for federal 
reporting.'' National Center for Education Statistics. Common 
Education Data Standards. Retrieved February 8, 2012 from: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ceds/. For more information, see http://ceds.ed.gov/Default.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Participate in, organize, or facilitate communities of practice 
if they align with the needs of the project's target audience. 
Communities of practice should align with the project's objectives to 
support discussions and collaboration among key stakeholders. The 
following Web site provides more information on communities of 
practice: www.tadnet.org/communities.
    (d) Prior to developing any new product, submit a proposal for the 
product to the TACC database for approval from the OSEP Project 
Officer. The development of new products should be consistent with the 
product definition and guidelines posted on the TACC Web site 
(www.tadnet.org).
    (e) Contribute, on an ongoing basis, updated information on the 
Center's approved and finalized products and services to a database at 
the TACC.
    (f) Coordinate with the National Dissemination Center for 
Individuals with Disabilities to develop an efficient and high-quality 
dissemination strategy that reaches broad audiences. The Center must 
report to the OSEP Project Officer the outcomes of these coordination 
efforts.
    (g) Maintain ongoing communication with the OSEP Project Officer 
through

[[Page 26529]]

monthly phone conversations and email communication.
    Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project:
    In deciding whether to continue funding the Center for the fourth 
and fifth years, the Secretary will consider the requirements of 34 CFR 
75.253(a), and in addition--
    (a) The recommendation of a review team consisting of experts 
selected by the Secretary. This review will be conducted during a one-
day intensive meeting in Washington, DC, that will be held during the 
last half of the second year of the project period. The Center must 
budget for travel expenses associated with this one-day intensive 
review;
    (b) The timeliness and effectiveness with which all requirements of 
the negotiated cooperative agreement have been or are being met by the 
Center; and
    (c) The quality, relevance, and usefulness of the Center's 
activities and products and the degree to which the Center's activities 
and products have contributed to changed practice and improved the 
States' capacity to collect and report high-quality data required under 
sections 616 and 618 of IDEA by developing and enhancing of statewide 
early childhood longitudinal data systems.
    Types of Priorities:
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
    Final Priority:
    We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal 
Register. We will determine the final priority after considering 
responses to this notice and other information available to the 
Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through 
a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563:
    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or 
Tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive Order.
    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866.
    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under 
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are proposing this priority only on a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net 
benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes 
that these regulations are consistent with the principles in Executive 
Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not 
unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive Orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action. 
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this 
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, 
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person

[[Page 26530]]

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this 
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free 
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the 
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System 
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well 
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal 
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF 
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the 
site.
    You may also access documents of the Department published in the 
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.

    Dated: April 30, 2012.
Alexa Posny,
Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Appendix A--IDEA Part B SPP/APR Indicators

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reporting 
requirements include a State's submission of data as part of its 
State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 
under section 616 of IDEA. In the APR, each State must report to the 
Department on its progress in meeting the measurable and rigorous 
targets for each of the following Part B indicators:
    1. Percent of youth with individualized education programs 
(IEPs) graduating from high school with a regular diploma.
    2. Percent of youth with IEPs dropping out of high school.
    3. Participation and performance of children with IEPs on 
statewide assessments:
    A. Percent of the districts with a disability subgroup that 
meets the State's minimum ``n'' size that meet the State's adequate 
yearly progress (AYP) targets for the disability subgroup;
    B. Participation rate for children with IEPs; and
    C. Proficiency rate for children with IEPs against grade level, 
modified and alternate academic achievement standards.
    4. Rates of suspension and expulsion:
    A. Percent of districts that have a significant discrepancy in 
the rate of suspensions and expulsions of greater than 10 days in a 
school year for children with IEPs; and
    B. Percent of districts that have: (a) A significant 
discrepancy, by race or ethnicity, in the rate of suspensions and 
expulsions of greater than 10 days in a school year for children 
with IEPs; and (b) policies, procedures or practices that contribute 
to the significant discrepancy and do not comply with requirements 
relating to the development and implementation of IEPs, the use of 
positive behavioral interventions and supports, and procedural 
safeguards.
    5. Percent of children with IEPs aged 6 through 21 served:
    A. Inside the regular class 80 percent or more of the day;
    B. Inside the regular class less than 40 percent of the day; and
    C. In separate schools, residential facilities, or homebound/
hospital placements.
    6. Percent of children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs attending a:
    A. Regular early childhood program and receiving the majority of 
special education and related services in the regular early 
childhood program; and
    B. Separate special education class, separate school or 
residential facility.
    7. Percent of preschool children aged 3 through 5 with IEPs who 
demonstrate improved:
    A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social 
relationships);
    B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 
language/communication and early literacy); and
    C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
    8. Percent of parents with a child receiving special education 
services who report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a 
means of improving services and results for children with 
disabilities.
    9. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of 
racial and ethnic groups in special education and related services 
that is the result of inappropriate identification.
    10. Percent of districts with disproportionate representation of 
racial and ethnic groups in specific disability categories that is 
the result of inappropriate identification.
    11. Percent of children who were evaluated within 60 days of 
receiving parental consent for initial evaluation or, if the State 
establishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must be 
conducted, within that timeframe.
    12. Percent of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who 
are found eligible for Part B, and who have an IEP developed and 
implemented by their third birthdays.
    13. Percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and above with an IEP 
that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are 
annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition 
assessment, transition services, including courses of study, that 
will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary 
goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student's transition 
services needs. There also must be evidence that the student was 
invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be 
discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any 
participating agency was invited to the IEP Team meeting with the 
prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of 
majority.
    14. Percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had 
IEPs in effect at the time they left school, and were:
    A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high 
school.
    B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within 
one year of leaving high school.
    C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary 
education or training program; or competitively employed or in some 
other employment within one year of leaving high school.
    15. General supervision system (including monitoring, 
complaints, hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as 
soon as possible but in no case later than one year from 
identification.
    16. Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued 
that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for 
exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or 
because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public 
agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other 
alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.
    17. Percent of adjudicated due process hearing requests that 
were adjudicated within the 45-day timeline or a timeline that is 
properly extended by the hearing officer at the request of either 
party or in the case of an expedited hearing, within the required 
timelines.
    18. Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions 
that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements.
    19. Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation 
agreements.
    20. State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and 
Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

Appendix B--IDEA Part C SPP/APR Indicators

    The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) reporting 
requirements include a State's submission of data as part of its 
State Performance Plan (SPP) and Annual Performance Report (APR) 
under section 616 of IDEA. In the APR, each State must report to the 
Department on its progress in meeting the measurable and rigorous 
targets for each of the following Part C indicators:
    1. Percent of infants and toddlers with individualized family 
service plans (IFSPs) who receive the early intervention services on 
their IFSPs in a timely manner.
    2. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who primarily 
receive early intervention services in the home or community-based 
settings.
    3. Percent of infants and toddlers with IFSPs who demonstrate 
improved:
    A. Positive social-emotional skills (including social 
relationships);
    B. Acquisition and use of knowledge and skills (including early 
language/communication); and
    C. Use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs.
    4. Percent of families participating in Part C who report that 
early intervention services have helped the family:
    A. Know their rights;
    B. Effectively communicate their children's needs; and
    C. Help their children develop and learn.
    5. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 1 with IFSPs 
compared to national data.

[[Page 26531]]

    6. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to 3 with IFSPs 
compared to national data.
    7. Percent of eligible infants and toddlers with IFSPs for whom 
an initial evaluation and initial assessment and an initial IFSP 
meeting were conducted within Part C's 45-day timeline.
    8. The percentage of toddlers with disabilities exiting Part C 
with timely transition planning for whom the Lead Agency has:
    A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps and services at least 
90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, not more than nine 
months, prior to the toddler's third birthday;
    B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out policy adopted by the 
State) the SEA and the LEA where the toddler resides at least 90 
days prior to the toddler's third birthday for toddlers potentially 
eligible for Part B preschool services; and
    C. Conducted the transition conference held with the approval of 
the family at least 90 days, and at the discretion of all parties, 
not more than nine months, prior to the toddler's third birthday for 
toddlers potentially eligible for Part B preschool services.
    9. General supervision system (including monitoring, complaints, 
hearings, etc.) identifies and corrects noncompliance as soon as 
possible but in no case later than one year from identification.
    10. Percent of signed written complaints with reports issued 
that were resolved within 60-day timeline or a timeline extended for 
exceptional circumstances with respect to a particular complaint, or 
because the parent (or individual or organization) and the public 
agency agree to extend the time to engage in mediation or other 
alternative means of dispute resolution, if available in the State.
    11. Percent of fully adjudicated due process hearing requests 
that were fully adjudicated within the applicable timeline or a 
timeline that is properly extended by the hearing officer at the 
request of either party.
    12. Percent of hearing requests that went to resolution sessions 
that were resolved through resolution session settlement agreements 
(applicable if Part B due process procedures are adopted).
    13. Percent of mediations held that resulted in mediation 
agreements.
    14. State reported data (618 and State Performance Plan and 
Annual Performance Report) are timely and accurate.

[FR Doc. 2012-10831 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P