Special Education: Varied State Criteria May Contribute to Differences in Percentages of Children Served

About 13 percent of children aged 3 through 21 enrolled in public schools received special education services in school year 2015-16, and about 3 percent of children from birth through age 2 received special education services. The percentage of the population served under IDEA varies across states. For example, in fall 2016, the percentages of the population aged 6 through 21 served in individual states ranged from 6.4 percent to 15.1 percent. Concerns about the difficulties identifying and evaluating children for special education have been raised by the media, experts, and special education advocates.

GAO was asked to examine how states implement Child Find and how Education monitors it. This report examines (1) factors that may account for differences in the percentage of children receiving special education services across states, and (2) how Education and selected states monitor and support Child Find efforts.

GAO reviewed federal special education data, agency documentation, federal laws and regulations, and selected state laws; and interviewed Education officials, officials from four state agencies and 15 school districts in those states (Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New York), and representatives of organizations that advocate for families of individuals with disabilities as well as special education subject matter specialists. GAO selected the four states based on a variety of factors, including the percentage of special education students.

Differences in states' eligibility criteria and the difficulty of identifying and evaluating some children suspected of having disabilities may contribute to differences in the percentages of children receiving special education services across states. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the primary federal special education law, requires states to have policies and procedures in place to ensure that all children with disabilities residing in the state who need special education services are identified, located, and evaluated. These policies and procedures—known as “Child Find”—are generally implemented by local school districts (see fig.). IDEA gives states some latitude in setting eligibility criteria and defining disability categories. In addition, states may determine their own processes for identifying and evaluating children. As a result, a child eligible for services in one state might be ineligible in another. According to advocates, special education subject matter specialists, and state and local officials GAO interviewed, a number of challenges related to correctly identifying and evaluating children suspected of having a disability can affect eligibility decisions. For example, school district officials in all four states GAO visited cited challenges in properly identifying and evaluating English Learner students, as districts do not always have staff who are conversant in a child's first language and skilled in distinguishing language proficiency from disabilities.

The Department of Education (Education) monitors and supports Child Find efforts primarily by reviewing states' annual performance data and providing professional development and technical assistance. The four states GAO visited reported monitoring and supporting school districts' efforts in a similar manner to Education's.

Nearly 7 million children between the ages of 3 and 21 (about 13 percent  of the total number of students enrolled in public schools) received  special education services during school year 2015-16 under the  Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, the  percentage of the population served under IDEA varies across states. For  example, in fall 2016, the percentages of the population aged 6 through  21 served in individual states ranged from 6.4 percent to 15.1 percent.

IDEA—the primary federal special education law for infants, toddlers,  children, and youth with disabilities—is administered at the federal level  by the U.S. Department of Education’s (Education) Office of Special  Education Programs (OSEP). Under Part B of IDEA states receiving Part  B funds are required to make a free appropriate public education  available to all eligible children with disabilities. To do so, IDEA requires  states to have policies and procedures to ensure that all children with  disabilities residing in the state are identified, located, and evaluated.  This requirement is known as “Child Find,” and is generally implemented  by local school districts.

Concerns about the identification and evaluation of children have been  raised by the media, experts, and special education advocates. For  instance, a 2016 series of investigative reports by the Houston Chronicle  alleged the systematic delay or denial of special education services for  children with disabilities in Texas. The series alleged that, to reduce  costs, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) set an 8.5 percent cap on the  percent of students who could receive special education services, and  intensified monitoring of school districts that exceeded that level.  Education monitored TEA and found, among other things, that some  school districts took steps designed to keep the percentage of children  receiving special education services at or below the 8.5 percent cap.  Education also found that TEA did not ensure that some school districts in  the state properly performed their Child Find responsibilities. Similarly, in  2016, the Connecticut State Department of Education found that a local  school district was not properly identifying children in need of special  education services. In addition, special education experts and advocates  have expressed concerns about both over-representation and under- representation of minorities in special education, which could indicate that  these students are not appropriately being identified and evaluated for  special education.

You asked us to examine how states implement IDEA’s Child Find  requirements and how Education oversees state implementation of Child  Find. This report examines (1) factors that may account for differences in  the percentage of children who receive special education services across  states, and (2) how Education and selected states monitor and support  Child Find requirements.

To obtain information for both objectives we (1) reviewed Education’s  special education data for school years 2011 through 2016 (the most  recent data available at the time of our review); (2) reviewed relevant  Department information, such as Dear Colleague Letters (documents  through which Education communicates policy information), Frequently  Asked Questions, and Questions and Answers; federal laws; federal  regulations and policies; and selected state laws and regulations; (3)  interviewed Education officials; and (4) interviewed officials from a  nongeneralizable selection of four states (Colorado, Iowa,  Massachusetts, and New York) from state agencies responsible for  special education and from 15 school districts within those states. We  selected the four states based on a variety of factors, including the  differences in the percentage of special education students served. We  also interviewed representatives from eight organizations that advocate  for parents and families of individuals with disabilities and four special  education subject matter specialists (hereinafter referred to as subject  matter specialists) to discuss issues related to Child Find. We determined  that the data used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report.  See appendix I for detailed information about our methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to April 2019 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

IDEA was enacted to ensure that all children with disabilities have access  to a free appropriate public education (FAPE); to protect the rights of  those children and their parents; and to assist states, localities,  educational service agencies, and federal agencies in educating those  children. Part C of IDEA provides grants to states for Early Intervention  services for infants and toddlers (birth through 2 years) with  developmental delays or diagnosed conditions that have a high likelihood  of developmental delay. Part B of IDEA provides grants to states to  assist them in providing special education and related services to eligible  children with disabilities beginning at age 3 and possibly lasting to the  student’s 22nd birthday, depending on state law or practice.

Special Education Administration and Funding

In fiscal year 2019, the total appropriation for IDEA Parts B and C was  approximately $13.2 billion ($12.8 billion for Part B and $470 million for  Part C). These funds are awarded through formula grants to state  agencies which, in turn, provide these funds to eligible entities (school  districts under Part B and early intervention service providers under Part  C) to carry out applicable IDEA requirements. (See table 1.)

Part C (Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers, Birth to 2 Years)

Each state has a designated lead agency—called a Part C Lead  Agency—that is responsible for administering, supervising, and  monitoring Part C. Part C requires each state to have a continuous  process of public awareness activities and evaluations designed to  identify and refer as early as possible all young children with disabilities  and their families who are in need of Early Intervention services. By law,  public awareness efforts should include disseminating information to  parents and those likely to make referrals, especially hospitals and  physicians. States have disseminated this information in different ways,  including through television ads, pamphlets, and posters describing Part  C and how parents can obtain services for their child.

Under Part C of IDEA, states must also provide services to any child  under 3 years of age who is developmentally delayed. These delays must  be measured by appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures in  one or more areas of cognitive development, physical development,  communication development, social or emotional development, and  adaptive development, or the child must have a diagnosed physical or  mental condition that has a high probability of resulting in developmental  delay. Once a child who is suspected of having a disability is referred,  states must evaluate the child in accordance with applicable IDEA  requirements. Figure 1 illustrates the typical process in Early Intervention  programs.

Infants and toddlers who are still receiving services by about age 2 and a  half are evaluated again to determine if they are eligible for services  under Part B.

Part B (Special Education Services for Children and Youth ages 3 through 21)

Under Part B, states and school districts must make FAPE available to all  eligible children with disabilities in mandatory age ranges. FAPE includes  special education (specially designed instruction) and related services  (support services)—such as speech therapy, psychological services, and  physical therapy—tailored to their needs based on an individualized  education program (IEP). Figure 2 illustrates the typical process for  identifying students for special education under Part B. Figure 3 shows  the percentage of children served under IDEA by age and state as of fall  2016. Nationally, for each age group, the percentage of children receiving  special education services remained relatively stable from 2012 through  2016, changing by less than 1 percentage point.

Varied State Eligibility Criteria and Challenges Identifying and Evaluating Children May Help Explain Differences in Percentages Served

Eligibility Criteria and Identification Processes Vary Across States

IDEA requires states to have policies and procedures to ensure that  school districts identify, locate, and evaluate all children suspected of  having a disability who need special education and related services,  regardless of the severity of their disability, but also gives states some  latitude in establishing eligibility criteria and defining disability categories.  In addition, states have some flexibility to determine their own processes  for identifying and evaluating children, provided the state’s procedures  are consistent with IDEA requirements. As a result, a child eligible for  IDEA services in one state might be ineligible in another.

Eligibility criteria. IDEA allows states some flexibility to establish  their own definitions of developmental delay (when a child does not  reach developmental milestones for certain skills, such as motor or  language skills, at the expected times), including the level or severity  of the delay. For example, in Maryland, a child must have at least a  25 percent delay in one or more developmental areas to be eligible for  Early Intervention services, while in Arizona, a child must demonstrate  a 50 percent delay in one or more developmental areas to be eligible.

In Massachusetts, Part C lead agency officials we interviewed said  that the state had, as IDEA allows, tightened eligibility criteria in 2009  to reduce the number of children eligible for Early Intervention  services by narrowing the definition of developmental delay. Officials  said that there were no current plans to change the eligibility criteria,  but that they would consider tightening eligibility criteria again if the  number of eligible children outpaces state fiscal resources for these  services.

Part C of IDEA also allows but does not require states to provide Part  C services to at-risk infants and toddlers. States that choose to  provide services to at-risk children may use IDEA risk factors to  determine eligibility, such as low birth weight or history of abuse and  neglect, or they may develop their own list of risk factors. For  example, Massachusetts developed its own at-risk criterion for  eligibility, which requires the presence of four or more defined child  and family factors, including biological, medical, and trauma-related  factors. As of 2018, seven states or territories were serving at-risk  infants and toddlers, according to an Education official.

Early Intervention process. The processes states use to deliver Part  C Early Intervention programs can vary in a number of ways. First, the  types of agencies designated as the Part C Lead Agency vary from  state to state; these lead agencies are responsible for administering  and monitoring Early Intervention programs in their states. For  example, Iowa’s State Educational Agency (SEA) administers both its  Parts C and B programs; Massachusetts and New York administer  their Parts C and B programs through separate agencies; and,  Colorado shares these responsibilities between two agencies.  Second, the extent to which lead agencies directly provide Early  Intervention programs, including locating and evaluating children, or  do so through contractors varies. For example, both Colorado and  Iowa administer their Early Intervention programs directly, while  Massachusetts and New York contract with private entities to do so. In  Massachusetts, early childhood officials said that they contract with 31  different vendors that operate 60 Early Intervention programs  throughout the state. In addition to providing Early Intervention  services, these programs are responsible for locating and evaluating  children, according to the early intervention officials. Those officials  also said that each of these individual programs have unique  relationships with referral sources, which can affect the likelihood that  the sources will make referrals to a given program. Regardless of the  type of entity responsible for Early Intervention programs, having  strong relationships with referral sources is important, according to  early childhood officials in all four of the states we visited.  Otherwise, according to these officials, some children who are likely to  be eligible for Early Intervention services may not be identified or  evaluated for needed services.

In Colorado, where Early Intervention responsibilities are shared  between the Part C lead agency and the SEA, state officials said that  this arrangement can make it difficult to ensure a seamless process  and can cause delays between evaluation and services. They said  that this can result in incorrect identification or services because they  do not have control over the evaluations—responsibility for  evaluations is assigned to the Part B agency. Part C officials also said  this can cause confusion for families as they are moved between  agencies. Relatedly, some infants and toddlers may not be identified  for Early Intervention services because of the challenges of sharing  data between state agencies when more than one agency is  responsible for providing special education to children. In three of the  four selected states we visited, responsibility for special education  services for children was shared by more than one agency and  officials in all three states told us that difficulties in sharing Early  Intervention program data could hamper efforts to identify potentially  eligible children for special education services. Officials in one of the  states said that sharing data could allow them to identify children  being provided school-aged special education services that had not  received Early Intervention services. The officials said that if  commonalities were found among these children, it could help them  find similar children and ensure they receive Early Intervention  services in the future.

Eligibility criteria. In practice, IDEA Part B’s disability definitions  provide minimum standards that all states must meet. According to  Education officials, IDEA allows states the flexibility to adopt more  expansive definitions of disabilities than those provided in the IDEA  statute and regulation, provided that the state definition would not  exclude children who would be covered by the IDEA definition. For  example, in New York an intellectual disability is defined as  “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning … that  adversely affects a student’s educational performance,” while in  Massachusetts an intellectual impairment is defined as occurring  when “the permanent capacity for performing cognitive tasks,  functions, or problem solving is significantly limited or impaired and is  exhibited by…a slower rate of learning .” Also,  states must establish their own eligibility criteria for determining the  presence of a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)—a broad category of  disorders related to understanding and using language. IDEA also  requires that states allow the use of research-based procedures in  establishing the presence of an SLD, but does not define the specific  procedures to be used.

Identification process. IDEA requires all states to have Child Find  policies and procedures in place, and requires a practical method for  determining which children with disabilities are currently receiving  needed special education and related services, but does not specify  the exact method to be used. In all four of the states we visited,  school district officials we interviewed said that the schools in their  respective districts were using the same type of approach as part of  the Child Find identification process, but that some school districts  were in different stages of implementation or that the approach was  being used differently by schools within the same districts. Officials in  one school district in New York said that, as part of their approach,  there was a concerted effort to use student data to make decisions  about intervention levels and special education evaluation decisions,  while a school district official in Massachusetts said that the district  had placed a greater emphasis on improving classroom instruction as  a means to reduce the need for special education services rather than  on intervention systems used for identifying and making decisions  about potentially eligible children. Officials of school districts in two of  the states we visited told us that they are in the midst of revising their  identification processes to increase accuracy and consistency across  the schools in their districts. Officials in one of those districts said that  differences in the processes schools used resulted in variations in  how the special education identification process worked in each of the  schools.

State and Local Officials Said Challenges Identifying and Evaluating Children Who May Be Eligible for Special Education Services May Lead to Differences in Who Is Served

Appropriately identifying and evaluating children who may be eligible for  special education services can be difficult, according to advocates,  subject matter specialists, and state and local officials we interviewed.  Representatives of two national special education advocacy organizations  and special education subject matter specialists agreed that it may be  difficult to identify disabilities and that differences in school district or in  school special education processes can add to this challenge.

Challenges to Early Childhood Identification and Evaluation (IDEA Part C)

Early Intervention services are intended to enhance the development of  infants and toddlers with disabilities, minimize developmental delay, and  reduce the need for special education later in life. However, officials we  interviewed at state agencies in the four states we visited— Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, and Iowa—said that because of  challenges in identifying and evaluating children, some infants and  toddlers who are eligible and would benefit from Early Intervention  services do not receive them. These challenges include navigating  referral processes, obtaining parental consent, and dealing with staffing  limitations.

State early childhood officials and subject matter specialists we  interviewed said it can be difficult to secure a parental or physician  referral, which can cause delays in evaluating children and may lead to  some infants and toddlers not being provided Early Intervention services.  In all four states we visited, officials noted that some parents or  physicians did not make referrals because they did not understand the  referral process. State officials in Iowa expressed concern that some  doctors may take a “wait-and-see” approach instead of referring an infant  or toddler for evaluation when indications first arise. Early childhood  officials in Colorado as well as Early Intervention subject matter  specialists we spoke to said that physicians may also choose not to refer  patients because they (1) cannot guarantee families that their children will  ultimately receive services, (2) find the referral process difficult, or (3)  receive little feedback about whether their referrals ultimately lead to  children getting Early Intervention services.

Before an infant or toddler can be evaluated for Early Intervention  services, the parent(s) must give consent. In Massachusetts and  Colorado, state early childhood officials said that parents sometimes do  not provide consent for an evaluation, which can delay or even prevent  the delivery of needed services. Officials from these states cited various  reasons parents might withhold consent, such as opting to wait and see if  the child’s problems are resolved over time. State early childhood officials  in Massachusetts also said that parents will sometimes refuse to provide  consent for evaluation due to a lack of awareness of Early Intervention  services or the Early Intervention process. To better address this, officials  said that they are working collaboratively with state early education and  care providers to inform parents about these issues. Massachusetts  officials stated that parents may mistrust government agencies or associate Early Intervention services or providers with child protective  services agencies and mistakenly think they are being investigated.

Insufficient personnel with the right qualifications to conduct evaluations is  another reason infants and toddlers may not be consistently identified and  evaluated, particularly in certain types of locations. Officials from lead  agencies in Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, and regional education  officials in Iowa, noted that it was difficult to find enough Early  Intervention personnel with appropriate expertise in low population  density areas which can complicate the process of identifying and  evaluating children. Officials in Massachusetts noted challenges hiring  staff that reflect the communities they serve and in hiring for specific  disciplines, such as occupational and physical therapists. In addition,  officials in New York said that they sometimes face staffing difficulties  when children are located in areas with high crime rates.

Challenges to Preschool-Age, School-Age, and Young Adult Identification and Evaluation (IDEA Part B)

State and local officials as well as special education advocacy  organizations said identifying and evaluating students for Part B special  education services can be complicated by many factors, which may result  in some students inappropriately being determined eligible or ineligible for  services. These factors include confusion over IDEA requirements,  challenges implementing Response to Intervention (RTI), a child’s lack of  English proficiency, the difficulty of detecting certain types of disabilities,  or the Part C to Part B transition.

School district officials in Massachusetts said that confusion about IDEA  requirements is common. For example, a school district official from that  state told us that general education staff do not always understand when  special education services are appropriate, versus when other options  may meet students’ needs, such as Response to Intervention (RTI) or  other supports. (See sidebar for more information about RTI.) Officials  in another school district in the same state said there was confusion over  and little consistency in the eligibility decisions made for special education  and other supports. Additionally, officials in that district said that the  expertise level among the decision makers varies and can affect eligibility  decisions.

Response to Intervention  For those students who may need additional  academic and behavioral supports to succeed  in a general education environment, schools  may choose to implement a multi-tiered  system of supports, such as Response to  Intervention (RTI). Regulations implementing  the 2004 amendments to the IDEA include a  provision mandating that states allow, as part  of their criteria for determining whether a child  has a Specific Learning Disability (SLD), the  use of a process based on the child’s  response to scientific, research-based  intervention. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.307(a)(2).  RTI is a school-wide approach that attempts  to address the needs of all students, including  struggling learners and students with  disabilities, and integrates assessments and  interventions to maximize student  achievement. Key characteristics of RTI are:  (1) students receive high-quality research- based instruction in the general education  setting; (2) schools continually monitor and  document student performance; (3) schools  screen all students for academic and  behavioral problems; and (4) schools provide  multiple levels (tiers) of instruction that are  progressively more intense, based on the  student’s response to instruction. Children  who do not respond to interventions are to be  referred for evaluation to determine eligibility  for special education and related services.

School district officials in all of the states we visited and representatives  from various advocacy organizations said that there were challenges  related to implementing RTI. Representatives from advocacy  organizations in all four states we visited cited concerns with school RTI  practices that may delay student evaluations or contribute to incorrect  eligibility determinations. Advocates in Massachusetts told us that some  school districts are more likely than others to put students suspected of a  disability through the RTI process for extended periods of time before  evaluating them. Further, advocates said using RTI to delay or deny  evaluations occurs more frequently at the elementary level and for  students with specific types of disabilities, such as mental health and  social or emotional disabilities. implementation, the type of disability a student has, the quality and  quantity of data gathered on students, and the amount of support  provided for the process.

In all of the states we visited, school district officials cited efforts to  address issues with RTI practices. For example, school district officials in  all four states noted that training related to RTI was being provided to  their schools. In Massachusetts, New York, and Iowa, school district  officials cited recent initiatives specifically aimed at strengthening and  implementing the RTI process in schools, such as by integrating social- emotional and behavioral components in RTI and better using student- level data to improve eligibility determinations. In one district, officials  specifically noted that efforts to improve their schools’ RTI processes and  core curriculum had reduced the number of special education students in  their district.

According to Education’s 2016-17 school year data, 73 percent of public  school districts in the nation had English Learner students; nationwide,  English Learner students comprise about 10 percent of public school  students, an increase of almost 3 percent since 2010. School district  officials we interviewed in all four states we visited described inherent  challenges in properly identifying and evaluating English Learner students  for special education disabilities. In Massachusetts and New York, school  district officials we interviewed explained that they do not always have  staff with the necessary expertise to perform evaluations in a child’s first  language, which makes it more difficult to determine if a child’s learning  difficulties are caused by a disability or by language proficiency issues.  State education officials in New York told us that they are concerned  about identification issues related to English Learner students, noting that  over 200 languages are spoken by their students and about 12 percent of  their students with disabilities were also English Learners in 2017-18. In  the same state, officials in one school district said that over 100 different  languages are spoken by their students and that it was a challenge to  properly identify and evaluate them.

Representatives of special education advocacy organizations in two  states we visited—Massachusetts and New York—made similar  observations, noting that English Learner students were at risk of being  both over identified and under identified. For example, advocates we  interviewed in Massachusetts said that under identification can occur  when school districts do not communicate with parents in their home  language and, as a result, the parents do not understand how to engage  with the special education process. Advocates in both states told us that  over and under identification may also occur if the lack of language  proficiency is mistaken for a disability or if a disability is mistaken for  language learning issues.

Education and the Department of Justice have issued guidance to assist  schools in meeting their obligations under federal law to ensure that  English Learner students who may be eligible for services under IDEA are  located, identified, and evaluated for special education services in a  timely manner. This guidance instructs schools to consider the English  language proficiency of the students appropriately so that they are not  identified as students with disabilities because of their limited English  language proficiency.

Local officials we interviewed in four states said that some disabilities,  such as those related to mental health or behavioral disorders, can be  difficult to identify and may go undiagnosed. These officials noted that  behavioral disabilities can be particularly difficult to correctly identify  because they sometimes affect academic performance or behavior in  more subtle ways.

Some school district officials said they may not have the right tools or  staff to identify these students. For example, officials in one school district  in Colorado stated that a commonly used disability identification process on its own was not effective for students with mental health and  behavioral disabilities. School district officials we spoke to in  Massachusetts and Iowa noted that they often struggle to employ staff  with the appropriate expertise to address mental health or behavioral  issues and that there are fewer resources for schools to use in these  areas.

Part C to Part B transition  Another area of confusion may arise when children transition from Part C  services to Part B services, at about age 3. School district officials in the  four states we visited said that they identify a significant number of their  districts’ school-aged special education students through referrals from  the state’s Early Intervention programs during the transition process.  State education officials in Massachusetts indicated that the majority of  children referred from the early childhood programs for Part B services  are not found eligible for school-aged services, which may indicate a lack  of a common understanding of the Part B eligibility criteria as the early  childhood programs are required to refer the children they think could be  eligible for those services.

Education and Selected States Reported Monitoring Child Find Implementation through Data Collection and Supporting It through Technical Assistance

Education Reported Monitoring State Implementation through Data Reporting and Supporting States with Technical Assistance and Information

Education’s Monitoring of State Implementation of Child Find

Education’s monitoring of state efforts to implement Child Find  requirements is part of a broad framework—known as Results Driven  Accountability (RDA)—the department uses to monitor certain aspects of  IDEA implementation. Education’s monitoring activities specific to Child  Find are based on data and information that states submit annually, as  required by IDEA and as part of the RDA process. Because IDEA gives  states some discretion in how to meet Child Find requirements, according  to Education officials, it focuses on ensuring states have policies,  procedures, and systems in place for monitoring local school districts’  special education programs, including their Child Find activities.

To monitor state Child Find activities, Education relies, in part, on four  indicators specific to the Child Find requirements and requires states to  report data on them annually in the State Performance Plan/Annual  Performance Report. Three of the indicators pertain to Part C Early  Intervention programs and one pertains to Part B.

Two Part C Child Find indicators compare the numbers of children  served to two data points—the national Part C average (as a  percentage) as well as the percentage Education would expect a state  to serve based on the state’s population. Education requires states to  report these Part C data for two subsets of children—birth to 1 year  and birth through 3 years. Education has encouraged states whose  Part C enrollment is significantly lower than the national average or  below expected levels based on the state’s population, to examine  compliance with related Part C requirements. The third Part C Child  Find indicator measures state compliance with the 45-day timeline.  For this indicator states must report on the number and percentage of  children referred to Part C whose evaluations, assessments, and  initial individualized family service plan meetings were held within 45  days of referral.

The Part B indicator measures the percent of children who were  evaluated within 60 days of receiving parental consent for initial  evaluation. This indicator is a compliance indicator for which states  must establish a target of 100 percent.

According to Education officials, the department developed these Parts C  and B indicators in response to requirements in the 2004 IDEA  reauthorization, which directed the Secretary of Education to monitor the  states, and require each state to monitor local educational agencies  located in the state or as applicable, the early intervention providers  located in the state, using quantifiable indicators in specific priority areas  (including Child Find), and using such qualitative indicators as are needed  to adequately measure performance in those areas. In developing the  indicators, Education officials told us that the department sought to strike  a balance between the statutory requirement that they be quantifiable and  the inherent challenges in knowing how many children should be  identified, evaluated, and found eligible—at the state level or in individual  school districts. Education officials said that states and school districts are  in a much better position to estimate how many children who have  disabilities and who could potentially be found eligible for special  education and related services because of their disability. Education  officials told us they consulted internal stakeholders, states, school  districts, and other special education experts to develop possible  quantifiable measures given the inherent challenges in doing so.

In addition to the Child Find indicator data submitted annually, under Part  B, states provide other information related to Child Find as part of their  annual data reporting to Education and the public. These data include the  number and percentage of children with disabilities by race, ethnicity,  English Learners, gender, and disability category that  receive a free appropriate public education; participate in general education; are placed in separate classes, schools, or residential facilities;  receive Early Intervention services; and are between birth to 2 years who are no longer receiving Early  Intervention services.

States are also required to report the number and percentage of infants  and toddlers, by race and ethnicity, who are at risk of having substantial  developmental delays and who are receiving Early Intervention  services.

Additionally, Education may receive information about states’ Child Find  activities in states’ annual reports as part of the description of IDEA  oversight policies and procedures; in explanations of any actions taken in  response to Education’s finding of noncompliance with Child Find  indicators in prior years; or in the comprehensive multi-year improvement  plan Education requires as part of its RDA framework.

Education Supports States in Implementing Child Find Requirements

Education supports states’ implementation of Child Find in a variety of  ways, including a network of technical assistance centers, written  guidance, and direct assistance from Education staff.

The Technical Assistance and Dissemination (TA&D) program is the  primary way Education provides educators, administrators, service  providers, and parents with information regarding IDEA. This program  assists state and local administrators on a range of topics including  clarifying Child Find obligations, professional development for staff and  administrators on various aspects of Child Find, and federal accountability  requirements. Technical assistance offerings include training on data  collection and Early Intervention issues for various audiences such as  teachers, administrators, and special education service providers.  Officials in each of the states we visited said they had used Education’s  technical assistance. In addition to the TA&D program, Education has  established six centers that specifically support states in the annual data  collection process.

Education provides written guidance to states through documents such as  Dear Colleague Letters, Frequently Asked Questions, and Questions and  Answers. These documents clarify provisions of Child Find and other  IDEA requirements as well as respond to common inquiries from school  administrators or the public. The written guidance may also address  information gathered during oversight activities and changes in federal  law or regulation.

Topics Education has addressed in written guidance on Child Find  include school districts’ uses of RTI and requirements for subgroups of  children who may be difficult to find. For example, Education issued a  memorandum in 2016 reminding states and districts that (1) RTI  processes cannot be used to delay or deny a timely evaluation of a child  suspected of having a disability and (2) implementation or completion of  RTI is not required prior to evaluating a student for special education  services. Officials in Colorado said they found this guidance helpful and  issued guidance to their school districts based on Education’s  memorandum. Additionally, in 2007 and 2008 Education addressed  issues regarding Child Find requirements for certain groups of children,  such as those who are homeless or those who are residing in Immigration  and Customs Enforcement (ICE) residential facilities. Homeless  children, for example, are inherently difficult to identify and evaluate for  special education services because they and their families are highly  mobile. Education’s guidance reminded states and school districts that  their Child Find obligations include these hard to find subgroups and  directed states to coordinate with emergency shelters and homeless  advocacy programs, among others, to help find children suspected of  having a disability.

Education’s website notes that each state is assigned a customer service  representative, a Part B contact, a Part C contact, and a team leader.  Education officials we spoke to told us that staff hold monthly check-in  meetings with state officials to provide information and discuss issues of  concern. They also said that issues needing clarification sometimes arise  during these check-in meetings. For example, they said that in a meeting  with state directors they identified a lack of clarity around some English  Learner issues. As a result, Education developed guidance to explain  Child Find obligations regarding English Learner students as well as other  obligations under IDEA. Education also has a customer service unit  available to assist states with questions about IDEA, special education,  and related services.

State officials in all four states we visited told us they had good  relationships with Education IDEA monitoring staff and rely on them to  learn about available technical assistance and other resources. Officials  we interviewed in one state said their Education contacts were  instrumental in helping them improve their programs. facilities, although Education stated that an ICE facility and the state or local school district  could enter into a voluntary agreement to provide Child Find or other educational services.  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,  Letter to David Anderson, General Counsel, Texas Education Agency (Dec. 21, 2007);  U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,  Letter to David Anderson, General Counsel, Texas Education Agency, (Apr. 22, 2008).   Education officials told us that if these children are released from ICE facilities into the  care of a sponsor to await their immigration hearings, they do have a right under federal  law to enroll in public elementary and secondary schools and to receive educational  services, including special education services, if found eligible.

Selected States Reported Monitoring Local Implementation through Audits and Data Reporting and Support Local Districts with Technical Assistance and Professional Development

Data Collection and Regularly Timed Audits

States must monitor their local school districts’ implementation of IDEA  requirements. As part of the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance  Report, each state must establish measurable and rigorous targets for the  indicators, including Child Find, and must analyze the performance of  each local school district in the state in implementing the requirements of  Part B or as applicable, each Early Intervention provider located in the  state in implementing the requirements of Part C. Data analysis and  regular audits are the primary means states use to monitor local school  districts, according to officials we interviewed in each of the four states we  visited.

The Part C lead agencies in the four states we visited reported monitoring  local implementation of Early Intervention programs through indicator  data or on-site visits. In their State Performance Plan/Annual  Performance Reports for federal fiscal year 2016, the states we visited  reported various monitoring activities. For example:

Colorado gathers data from an online system to monitor local  programs and analyze performance. In addition to desk audits of local  service providers, Colorado’s lead agency does on-site monitoring,  selecting local agencies for monitoring visits based on its annual  priority areas, or focusing on a cross-section of programs based on  size, region, and program structure. Colorado’s annual priority areas  have included topics such as increasing public awareness regarding  Early Intervention services by providing developmental information to  parents of newborns in the hospital and ensuring that the  transdisciplinary team members who are responsible for evaluating  infants and toddlers are effectively communicating.

Massachusetts’ local Early Intervention programs complete and  submit to the state lead agency annual reports and self- assessments  based on federal indicators. Additionally, the Part C lead agency  conducts on-site monitoring of selected sites on a cyclical basis, and  focused monitoring to examine specific aspects of local Early  Intervention programs.

New York conducts comprehensive on-site monitoring of  municipalities that administer local Early Intervention programs and  approved providers who perform Early Intervention services including  reviewing written policies and procedures regarding Early Intervention  processes as well as examining a sample of client records at each  service location.

Iowa monitors all regional grantees on an annual basis. The process  includes review of parent surveys and review of family outcome data,  among other things. When performance or compliance issues are  identified, the lead agency conducts desk audits and data verification  checks.

Although Part B monitoring activities in the four selected states are  similar, they reflect the structure, policies and procedures of individual  states. For example, Iowa officials said they monitor both Area Education  Agencies and local school districts through desk audits and site visits.  Officials told us that the SEA has developed (1) a process to evaluate the  performance of the regional agencies regarding the provision of special  education services and their oversight responsibilities for the local school  districts, and (2) a separate process that examines the performance of  school districts with regard to IDEA implementation. The State  Performance Plan/Annual Performance Reports for federal fiscal year  2016 for the remaining three states we visited note the following  monitoring activities:

Colorado collects data and reviews the results of school district self- audits from each of its districts.

Massachusetts reported reviewing indicator data and instituting a new  monitoring process called Tiered Focus Monitoring. In the first year of  the monitoring cycle, all local school districts are to conduct self- assessments on specific criteria related to the special education  identification processes and other topics. The self-assessments  inform the SEA’s on-site monitoring in the second year. In the third  year, school districts are to continue internal monitoring; and in the  fourth year, they complete a self-assessment regarding special  education and legal requirements.

New York reported reviewing data and using school district self- assessments, desk audits, and on-site monitoring. According to the  annual report the selection of sites for on-site monitoring depends on  a variety of information, including performance on indicator targets.

Professional Development and Technical Assistance for Local School Districts

IDEA requires states and lead agencies to provide professional  development and technical assistance to local school districts.

The State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Reports for federal  fiscal year 2016 for each of the four states we visited described  professional development activities provided on topics related to Part C  Early Intervention and Part B programs.

For Part C, states reported that they provided the following professional  development activities among others:

Colorado provided training on data management to ensure valid and  reliable data for monitoring purposes.

Iowa provided service coordination training which provides knowledge  and skills to understand Early Intervention eligibility, the IDEA, and  Early Intervention services.

Massachusetts held training sessions for Early Intervention service  providers regarding Early Intervention transitions to support children  who are exiting Early Intervention services or are referred for Part B  services. Early Intervention service providers were also able to  receive training concerning functional assessments.

New York employed contractors to provide training on best practices  for delivering Early Intervention services and training about providing  those services in a child’s natural environments. Additionally, they  provided training to primary referral sources.

For Part B, the states reported that they provided the following  professional development activities among others:

Colorado provided professional development on topics that were  identified by teachers. The SEA surveys teachers, providers, and  Special Education Directors annually to determine professional  development topics. Officials we interviewed in selected school  districts told us that they had received training on Child Find  obligations and classroom interventions.

Iowa requires each district to develop professional development plans  that support the needs of district staff responsible for instruction.  Districts officials said they have provided training concerning  intervention strategies and Child Find responsibilities.

Massachusetts has provided training in social emotional learning and  behavioral interventions.

New York provides ongoing statewide training regarding classroom  and behavioral interventions, as well as a program for school  principals regarding special education law and regulations as well as  the principal’s responsibilities for implementing IDEA.

Officials we interviewed in each of the four states we visited told us that  they offer a range of technical assistance, including written guidance,  webinars, meetings/conferences, telephone assistance, and one-on-one  training to support local school districts and schools in implementing Child  Find requirements. For example, New York instituted a Blueprint for  Improved Results for Students with Disabilities. This Blueprint establishes  expectations to improve instruction and results for students with  disabilities, which in turn informs the state’s technical assistance  networks. In each of the four states, officials reported (1) offering  targeted assistance where there were concerns related to performance or  results of Part B programs and (2) examining results and compliance data  to identify areas of concern and potential recipients for targeted  assistance. For example, Massachusetts reported in its annual report that  it had provided one-on-one technical assistance to local school districts  where there were performance concerns, while New York reported that  its technical assistance improvement specialists review low-performing  schools and help to develop tools for improvement.

Similarly, the Part C lead agency officials in all of the states we visited  told us they provided training and technical assistance to Early  Intervention programs. These states offered assistance in a variety of  ways including written guidance, information provided via phone or email,  and formal training sessions. Officials from Colorado and Iowa reported  holding monthly technical assistance calls, while officials from  Massachusetts reported holding monthly webinars for local Early  Intervention providers. In its annual report, Iowa reported providing  training on using technology to provide Early Intervention services, while  New York reported offering training on best practices in identifying and  evaluating infants and toddlers. Each of the four states we visited  reported offering targeted assistance to schools where monitoring efforts  identified concerns or compliance issues. The targeted assistance is  intended to improve performance in the areas identified.

We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment.  Education provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Education, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on  the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov. Contact points for our offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) factors that may account  for differences in the percentage of children receiving special education  services, and (2) how the U.S. Department of Education (Education) and  selected states monitor and support Child Find requirements.

To conduct this work we (1) reviewed federal special education data from  school years 2011 through 2016 (the most recent available at the time of  our review); (2) reviewed relevant Department information, such as Dear  Colleague Letters, Frequently Asked Questions, and Questions and  Answers; federal laws; regulations and policies; and selected state laws;  (3) interviewed Education officials; (4) interviewed officials from state  agencies responsible for administering Parts C and B of the Individuals  with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) special education programs in four  states (Colorado, Iowa, Massachusetts, and New York) and fifteen school  districts within those states; and (5) interviewed representatives from  special education advocacy organizations that represent parents and  families of individuals with disabilities and subject matter specialists to  discuss issues related to Child Find. The following sections contain  detailed information about the scope and methodology for this report.

Review of Federal Special Education Data

To determine the differences in the percentage of children receiving  special education services across states we used Education’s Annual  Reports to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to review national and state level special  education data. We used the most recent five reports, 2014 through 2018,  which reported on data for school years 2012 through 2016, to review the  percentages of children that were receiving special education services  under IDEA Part C and Part B during school years 2012 through 2016  nationally and by state. These data, known as Section 618 data, are self- reported by school districts. We focused our review primarily on data  regarding the percentage of children served under IDEA Part C (ages 0- 2), Part B (ages 3-5), and Part B (ages 6-21), nationally and by state  during school years 2012 through 2016. We determined that the data we  used from the Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report by reviewing  technical documentation and interviewing Education officials to determine  what mechanisms are in place to ensure data quality.

Review of Agency Documentation, Federal Laws, Regulations, Policies, and Selected State Laws and Regulations and Interviews of Education Officials

To obtain information on the factors that may account for variation in the  percentage of children receiving special education services and to  examine how Education and selected states support and monitor Child  Find requirements, we reviewed Education documents, such as Dear  Colleague Letters, Frequently Asked Questions, and Questions and  Answers. We also reviewed Education’s recent annual reports to  Congress and documents containing guidance to states on required  annual data submissions. Additionally, we reviewed relevant federal laws,  regulations, and policies, and selected state laws and regulations. With  both Education and state agencies responsible for supporting and  monitoring Child Find requirements, we interviewed officials about the  agencies’ responsibilities with respect to IDEA, as well as the processes  the agencies put in place to monitor implementation of those  requirements. We also discussed each agency’s guidance and support to  school districts on these issues. In addition, we collected and reviewed  relevant agency procedures and guidance documents.

Site Visits and Associated Interviews with Officials at State Agencies and School Districts

To obtain information on the factors that may account for differences  among selected states and school districts in the percentage of children  receiving special education services and how selected states support and  monitor Child Find requirements, we conducted site visits in a non- generalizable sample of four states and 15 school districts. We selected  states primarily for diversity in (1) the percentage of special education  students; (2) changes in the percentage of special education students  over a 5-year period; (3) geography; and (4) the agency responsible for  state Early Intervention programs (i.e., the state educational agency or  another state agency). We used data from the National Center for  Education Statistics (NCES), Common Core of Data (CCD) for the 5-year  period, 2011-2015 (the most recent available data at the time of our  selection) to identify the percentage of special education students in each  state as well as the change in the percentage of special education  students in each state over the 5-year period. We determined that the  data used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of the report by  reviewing technical documentation and interviewing Education officials to  determine what mechanisms are in place to ensure data quality.

In each state, we interviewed officials from the state educational agency,  the agency responsible for Part B special education, as well as officials  from the state agency responsible for Part C special education. In  addition, we also interviewed officials from special education advocacy  organizations that represent parents and families of individuals with  disabilities.

We selected school districts primarily for diversity of size. We used state  department of education enrollment data for 2017-2018 to sort school  districts based on the size of the student population. We selected three  school districts in Colorado, five in Iowa, three in Massachusetts and four  in New York. In each district, we interviewed district-level officials involved  in special education and school Child Find processes. These officials  included assistant superintendents, administrators, and directors of  special education.

While not generalizable, our interviews provided illustrative examples of a  range of state and district Child Find processes, and the differences and  challenges states and school districts face.

Interviews with Special Education Advocates and Special Education Subject Matter Specialists

To obtain information on the factors that may account for differences  among states and school districts in the percentage of children receiving  special education services and processes that states and school districts  may use in implementing their Child Find requirements, we interviewed  representatives from eight special education advocacy organizations that  represent parents and families of individuals with disabilities and four  special education subject matter specialists to discuss issues related to  Child Find. Some of the issues we discussed included Early Intervention  eligibility, assessment processes of students including Response to  Intervention, and other topics to get a better sense of Child Find  processes and issues.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Bill MacBlane (Assistant  Director), Mindy Bowman (Analyst-in-Charge), Aaron Karty, Deborah  Signer, Phillip Steinberg, and Shelia Thorpe made key contributions to  this report. Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Deborah  Bland, Shilpa Grover, Serena Lo, Art Merriam, Sheila R. McCoy, Corinna  Nicolaou, James Rebbe, Brian Schwartz, Daren Sweeney, and Kathleen  van Gelder.

Nearly 7 million children between the ages of 3 and 21 received special education services during the 2015-16 school year under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. That's about 13% of the total number of students enrolled in public school. But the percent of the population served under the act varies across states. We found that differences in states' eligibility criteria may contribute to this variation.

Challenges with identifying and evaluating children can also affect enrollment rates—for example, when children don't speak English, school districts don't always have staff that can evaluate them in their first language.